Israel’s standing among the U.S. public is at an all-time low after Americans have witnessed two- and-one-half years of live-streamed Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, fueled by tens of billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer-provided weapons and diplomatic cover.
Last August, a Quinnipiac poll found that 60 percent of all Americans, including 75 percent of Democrats and 66 percent of independents, opposed U.S. military funding for Israel while only 32 percent supported it.
Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to recognize the unpopularity of asking U.S. taxpayers to further subsidize weapons to Israel. In an interview with 60 Minutes earlier this month, Netanyahu suggested transitioning from “aid” to a “partnership.”
This was not a surprise. Netanyahu had announced earlier this year that he wanted to “taper off” formal U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons, known as Foreign Military Financing (FMF), to Israel over the next decade, in favor of increased co-production and co-development of weapons between Israeli and U.S. weapons manufacturers. This proposal garnered the backing of pro-Israel stalwart Sen. Lindsey Graham and aligns with proposals for strengthening the U.S.-Israeli relationship put forward by The Heritage Foundation and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), two pro-Trump think tanks with a hard-edged anti-Palestinian animus and clear pro-Israel agendas.
However, American taxpayers should be aware of the bait-and-switch nature of these proposals, especially as the U.S. and Israel now enter into negotiations for a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will outline the parameters of the bilateral military relationship over the next decade.
While taxpayer funding through FMF might be decreasing in these proposals, Americans will still be on the hook to fund potentially even greater levels of appropriations through the Department of War for the co-production and co-development of weapons. Rather than reducing U.S. support to Israel as most Americans want, these proposals could increase taxpayer funding to Israel – by as much as 60 percent in the FDD proposal. And there might not be much time to debate this, as a recent report revealed that Israeli and U.S. negotiating teams could conclude the new MOU within four months, prior to the midterms.
However, no matter what language Netanyahu uses to sell the next MOU, it appears Americans aren’t buying it. The Gaza genocide, Israel’s forced displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank, its destruction in Lebanon, and its role in cajoling President Donald Trump to launch an unprecedented combined U.S.-Israeli war against Iran have resulted in 60 percent of American adults having a negative view of Israel, with only 37 percent holding a favorable view, according to an April 2026 Pew Research Center poll. This result reflects a dramatic volte face: just four years ago, 55 percent of American adults held a favorable view of Israel while only 42 percent had a negative view.
The trend is even more pronounced among Democrats. A whopping 80 percent of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic hold an unfavorable view of Israel. And while Republicans and independents who lean Republican overall still hold a favorable view of Israel, generational change is clearly at work: 57 percent of Republicans aged 18 to 49 hold an unfavorable view of Israel.
Members of Congress are belatedly catching up to these dramatic changes in public opinion by challenging the ongoing provision of U.S. weapons to Israel. Just a few years ago, the idea of blocking weapons to Israel was considered the third rail of U.S. politics, a surefire way for a politician to end their career by risking the ire of AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbying organizations.
Not so anymore. On April 15–Tax Day–Sen. Bernie Sanders forced votes on Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) to block the delivery to Israel of nearly $450 million of taxpayer-funded 1,000-pound bombs and armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers–weapons which Israel has employed in its campaigns of mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and forced displacement from Palestine to Lebanon to Iran. 85 percent of all Senate Democrats, including every single presumptive Democratic aspirant for the White House, voted for one or more of these resolutions.
And in the House, Rep. Delia Ramirez’s Block the Bombs Act–the first bill ever introduced in U.S. history that would proactively prevent the president from sending Israel the types of weapons which it has used to inflict genocide against Palestinians in Gaza–is now supported by 69 Members of Congress–one-third of the Democratic caucus.
With the Congressional Progressive Caucus–the largest caucus in the House–endorsing the legislation and with more than 200 Democratic candidates pledging their support for it if elected in the midterms, the bill has a real chance of passing in a Democratic-controlled House next year.
While it’s a step in the right direction that increasing numbers of Members of Congress, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and pro-Israel advocacy organizations, such as J Street, are now opposed to any U.S. taxpayer-financed weapons to Israel, it’s not enough to state that Israel is a wealthy enough country and can purchase U.S. weapons with its own money.
Instead of entering into a new MOU with Israel and locking the U.S. into a long-term commitment to bankroll Israel’s ongoing oppression of Palestinians, the U.S. should instead act to impose a comprehensive arms embargo against a country increasingly viewed as a pariah state.
Israel’s flagrant and systematic violations of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) and Arms Export Control Act (AECA) mandate an arms embargo. In particular, Section 502B of the FAA stipulates that “no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” And the AECA strictly limits the use to U.S. weapons provided to foreign countries “solely for internal security, for legitimate self-defense,” and for certain other limited purposes not relevant to Israel’s use of U.S. weapons to inflict atrocities against Palestinians living under a nearly six-decade-long brutal military occupation.
The consequences for countries that violate these two laws are stark. The U.S. may not give, sell, extend credits for, provide loan guarantees for, or license any weapons exports.
Entering into a new MOU to provide Israel with another decade of U.S. weapons would be a grave mistake and make a mockery of the rule of law. The U.S. must end all weapons transfers to and weapons co-development with a country that has systematically denied Palestinians their freedom and human rights for more than three-quarters of a century.
Josh Ruebner
Dr. Josh Ruebner is a Faculty Fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Social Justice and the author of the upcoming book, The United States and the Palestinian Nakba: A Transnational History, 1947-1950.
