This obsession with 'Jewish control'—repackaged today as criticism of Israel or AIPAC—echoes the medieval blood libels, false accusations scapegoating Jews for societal ills (See Blood Libel #14 | “Israel controls the U.S. government and media). Yet, the numbers and actions of other nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia reveal a far greater influence. This selective outrage isn’t just inaccurate—it perpetuates a dangerous stereotype, diverting attention from real foreign leverage in U.S. policy. What’s especially insidious is its rhetorical sleight of hand: it’s not about Israel, but Jews. Antisemites throughout history have masked their hostility toward Jewish people under the guise of 'reasonable criticism.' In the Middle Ages, Jews were accused of poisoning wells to explain plagues. Today, they are accused of 'poisoning democracy' through AIPAC or imagined control of Washington. The form changes, the prejudice doesn’t. The narrative that U.S. aid to Israel drains American taxpayers or undermines national security has been a persistent talking point among some influential voices. But let’s cut through the noise. This obsession echoes the medieval blood libels—false accusations scapegoating Jews for societal woes—repackaged today as critiques of Israel or AIPAC. The reality? The $3.8 billion annual allocation isn’t just 'aid'—it’s a strategic partnership delivering substantial returns. Far from a one-way street, this investment cycles back into the U.S. economy, creates jobs, and enhances our military tech in ways that are game-changing.
To put it in perspective: $3.8 billion represents less than 0.1% of the U.S. federal budget. America spends more every year on foreign aid to Afghanistan during the war, or on agricultural subsidies for domestic farmers. Yet critics single out Israel as if this figure were uniquely outrageous. Why? Because it fits a pre-existing narrative. And that’s the hallmark of propaganda: magnifying one detail, ignoring all context, and blaming a convenient scapegoat.
The Tech Edge Israel Brings to America
Israel’s battlefield experience acts as a live testing ground, refining U.S. systems with invaluable innovations. What’s even more compelling is how Israel perfects and improves U.S. technology, delivering invaluable advancements. Israel’s battlefield experience in a high-threat region acts as a live testing ground, refining systems that the U.S. then adopts or enhances.
Missile Defense: The Iron Dome, co-developed with over $1.3 billion in U.S. funding since 2011, uses AI to ignore harmless projectiles—a lesson integrated into U.S. systems like SkyHunter. The Trophy Active Protection System, protecting U.S. M1 Abrams tanks, saves American lives based on Israeli combat data.
Aircraft Innovation: Israel’s contributions to the F-35, including the Helmet Mounted Display System, give U.S. pilots unmatched situational awareness. Combat use of the F-35I variant feeds back critical improvements.
Unmanned Systems and AI: Israeli drones like the Hermes 450, now used by U.S. Customs for border security, and AI-driven targeting systems like Fire Weaver, shape U.S. sensor-to-shooter networks.
Tactical Gear: Innovations like the Israeli Emergency Bandage and SIMON breach grenades, born from real-world use, are now standard in American kits.
What makes these examples so powerful is that they don’t just save Israeli lives—they save American lives. U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan directly benefited from Israeli innovations. That’s a tangible return on investment, not some abstract geopolitical 'favor.'
This collaboration is formalized under the 2019-2028 Memorandum of Understanding, with $500 million yearly for missile defense R&D. Think tanks highlight Israel’s role as a 'military-technology complex,' accelerating U.S. adoption of cyber and robotics tech.
Thus, even if Israel’s line item looks large, the returns to the U.S. economy and security are also outsized.
Strategic Returns That Matter
Beyond economics and tech, the partnership yields shared intelligence and refined military doctrine. Israel’s counterterrorism insights and joint exercises like Juniper Oak enhance U.S. security, especially against threats like Iran. This symbiosis delivers a return far exceeding the initial investment, with estimates suggesting vast technological and economic benefits.
On the economic front, critical components of leading American high-tech products are invented and designed in Israel, making the American companies that manufacture those products more competitive and profitable. Cisco, Intel, Motorola, Applied Materials, and HP are just a few examples. The US-Israeli economic and commercial relationship now encompasses IT, biotech, life sciences, health care solutions, energy, pharmaceuticals, food and beverages, defense industries, cyber-security, aviation, desalination, recycling, conservation, management, and irrigation.
US firms established two-thirds of the 300 foreign-invested research and development centers in Israel at Start-Up Nation (an independent non-profit that builds bridges to Israeli innovation firms). Israeli firms represent the second-largest source of foreign listings on the NASDAQ after China, and more than Indian, Japanese, and South Korean firms combined. According to an estimate by the US Chamber of Commerce, Israel is home to more than 2,500 American firms employing some 72,000 Israelis.
The US and Israel have three joint research & development foundations: the Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation (BIRD), the Binational Science Foundation (BSF), and the Binational Agricultural Research and Development Foundation (BARD). Since its inception in 1977, the BIRD Foundation has granted $282 million to 813 projects that have directly and indirectly generated $8 billion in sales.
Israeli businesses invest heavily in the US economy, with Israel placing among the top 20 suppliers of direct investment in the US. More than $150 billion was invested by Israeli companies in the US between 2010 and 2015 (more than $25.1 billion in 2015 alone). As of this writing, over 30 US states have signed bilateral agreements with Israel to foster closer ties in fields like business, technology, agriculture, homeland security, and energy.
Strategically, the US and Israel have developed deep strategic ties to confront common threats. This strategic relationship is a crucial pillar of America’s Middle East security framework, and the partnership is continually growing and expanding into new areas. Both nations gain from a strong strategic partnership, which draws in part upon Israel’s capabilities in designing advanced military, homeland security, counterterrorism, and cyber-protection technologies including AI, that help the US meet its growing security challenges. Israel’s military strength and central geostrategic location provide a strong deterrent to regional actors opposed to the US. Israel is the place where US special operations units trained before deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israeli armor plating technology protects US soldiers. Israel is a cost-effective, battle-tested laboratory for US defense industries, and it provides the US with more intelligence than all the NATO countries put together. American battle tactics are formulated according to the Israeli playbook. Israel is a strategic beachhead of the US in the Middle East.
It is in effect the largest US aircraft carrier, yet it does not require a single American boot on the ground. Israel is the only stable, reliable, capable, democratic, and unconditional ally of the US, and it is willing to flex its muscles.
In contrast, the opaque billions from Qatar and others—$100 billion from Qatar alone—lack such reciprocity, raising concerns about influence without mutual gain. Singling out Israel as a 'controller' ignores this reality, perpetuating a narrative that deflects from true foreign leverage.
Consider intelligence alone: Israeli warnings about terrorist plots have prevented attacks in Europe and the U.S. Their cybersecurity expertise—refined against Iranian and Hezbollah hackers—directly safeguards American financial systems and infrastructure. If the value of even one prevented 9/11-style plot is incalculable, then the $3.8 billion figure fades into insignificance.
Who Else Gets U.S. Military Aid?
The United States provides military aid to numerous countries worldwide, primarily through programs like Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International Military Education and Training (IMET), and Excess Defense Articles (EDA), as well as direct support during conflicts or for strategic alliances. This aid often includes equipment, training, and financial assistance, reflecting U.S. interests in security, counterterrorism, and regional stability.
Based on available data from various sources, including government reports and analyses up to September 2025, here’s a list of significant recipients of U.S. military aid, excluding Israel (which receives approximately $3.8 billion annually). Note that exact figures and rankings vary by year due to shifting priorities, but this list highlights major recipients based on recent trends (e.g., 2020–2024 data where available).
Egypt: Receives around $1.3–$1.5 billion annually in FMF, a legacy of the 1979 Camp David Accords. Aid supports border security, counterterrorism, and maintaining the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, though some funds have been conditioned due to human rights concerns.
Jordan: Gets approximately $1–$1.2 billion yearly, with a focus on counterterrorism, border security with Syria/Iraq, and support against ISIS. This includes equipment like F-16s and training.
Ukraine: Since Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, aid has surged, reaching $2.5–$3 billion annually by 2023–2024 (e.g., $16.6 billion total in FY 2023 per USAFacts), including Javelin missiles and HIMARS, though much is humanitarian or economic with military components.
Afghanistan: Pre-2021 withdrawal, received $3–$4 billion annually (e.g., $3 billion in 2020), mainly for training and equipment to Afghan forces. Post-withdrawal, aid has dropped significantly but includes counterterrorism support.
Iraq: Receives $500 million–$1 billion yearly, focused on rebuilding forces post-ISIS, with equipment like armored vehicles and training programs.
Saudi Arabia: While not a traditional FMF recipient, gets billions in arms sales (e.g., $15 billion in deals since 2010) and logistical support, though recent scrutiny over Yemen has led to pauses (e.g., 2018–2019).
Pakistan: Historically received $1–$2 billion annually (e.g., $1.6 billion in 2010), tied to counterterrorism and Afghanistan stability, though aid has decreased since 2011 due to tensions over nuclear programs and U.S. drone strikes.
Colombia: Gets $200–$400 million yearly under Plan Colombia, focusing on counter-narcotics and FARC remnants, with helicopters and training.
South Korea: Receives $50–$100 million annually in FMF, supplemented by joint exercises and equipment (e.g., Patriot systems), reflecting the U.S.-South Korea alliance against North Korea.
Taiwan: Gets $300–$500 million yearly (e.g., $136 million in FY 2023 disbursements), including weapons like F-16s and missile defense, amid China tensions, though some argue it’s underfunded relative to threats.
Philippines: Receives $50–$100 million annually, with aid increasing for counterterrorism in Mindanao and South China Sea patrols, including patrol boats.
Nigeria: Gets $50–$100 million yearly, focused on Boko Haram and regional stability, with training and light arms.
Kenya: Receives $50–$75 million annually, supporting counterterrorism in the Horn of Africa, including drones and training.
Georgia: Gets $30–$60 million yearly, aiding defense against Russia, with equipment like Humvees.
Lebanon: Receives $100–$200 million annually, supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces against Hezbollah, though aid has been scrutinized for potential misuse.
With a 2020 FMF budget of $6.4 billion, Israel’s share is meaningful but part of a wider network. This context dismantles the myth of disproportionate influence—aid is a tool, not a puppet string.
It is also worth noting that much of America’s foreign aid is driven by self-interest, not altruism. Egypt’s aid maintains peace with Israel and ensures Suez Canal stability. Jordan’s supports a buffer against ISIS. Ukraine’s is a front-line defense against Russian expansionism. The point: all aid is strategic. Singling out Israel for scrutiny, while ignoring the strategic rationale behind every other package, exposes a double standard.
Moreover, Israel is the only aid recipient legally required to spend nearly all its U.S. assistance on American-made defense products. That means jobs for Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and hundreds of subcontractors across U.S. states. In practice, Israel’s aid is a jobs program for American workers—hardly the drain its critics claim.
It is a common assertion that Israel receives more aid than any other country. While Israel is historically the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid since World War II, a look at current annual figures reveals a different picture and dismantles the “disproportionate influence” myth.
In recent years, other countries like Ukraine have received a surge in aid, far surpassing Israel’s annual allocation. For example, in FY 2023 Ukraine received over $16 billion. Moreover, as outlined above, the aid to Israel is part of a wider network of U.S. foreign assistance packages, each driven by a strategic rationale. The narrative that Israel is an outlier distracts from the truth that U.S. foreign aid is a tool of statecraft, not a charity program. Every dollar is allocated to advance U.S. interests, from fighting terrorism in Pakistan to countering Russian expansionism in Ukraine.
Addressing the Critics
While the strategic benefits are clear, critics often raise two main points that need to be addressed directly: human rights concerns and the argument that Israel is the single largest recipient of U.S. aid. Some critics argue that U.S. aid to Israel should be conditioned on human rights concerns related to its treatment of Palestinians. This argument, while well-intentioned, often overlooks key details.
Aid Conditionality is Complex: U.S. aid is rarely “unconditional.” While the aid framework with Israel is unique, the U.S. regularly engages with Israel on a variety of issues, including human rights. However, the U.S. prioritizes its strategic interests, which include maintaining a powerful and stable ally in a volatile region.
The Broader Context: Focusing on Israel alone ignores the fact that the U.S. provides aid to numerous other countries with documented human rights issues, including Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The aid to these nations is also driven by strategic interests—such as counterterrorism, regional stability, and access to resources—not solely by an endorsement of their domestic policies. The singling out of Israel on this issue reveals a double standard.
Selective Outrage: Conditioning aid has rarely been applied with the same vigor to far worse offenders. The U.S. has continued substantial aid to Egypt despite systemic repression, and to Pakistan despite harboring terror networks. To demand special conditionality for Israel—while turning a blind eye to these cases—suggests that the criticism is less about human rights and more about delegitimizing Israel.
Israel’s Record in Perspective: Unlike many aid recipients, Israel is a democracy with independent courts, a free press, and regular elections. Even when controversial policies arise, they are debated and challenged within Israel itself. That is a far cry from regimes where aid props up dictatorships. The critique often ignores this critical distinction.
When you step back, both counterarguments—the human rights conditionality and the “top recipient” myth—fall into a familiar pattern. Critics apply standards to Israel that they don’t apply to anyone else. Billions flow to authoritarian regimes without protest, yet Israel, a democracy and ally, is singled out for condemnation. This selectivity mirrors the old blood libels: take a universal problem, ignore every other culprit, and pin it uniquely on the Jews.
That’s why the debate about aid to Israel is rarely just about policy. It becomes a vessel for ancient prejudices in modern packaging. If the concern were truly human rights, consistency would demand protests over Egypt, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia. If the concern were aid levels, outrage would center on Ukraine’s massive packages. The fact that it doesn’t tells us everything. Israel is not the outlier—the double standard is.
In the end, when critics obsess over Israel while ignoring far larger aid flows and far worse human rights violators, they aren’t exposing U.S. policy failures—they’re reviving an old blood libel in new clothes.
The U.S. partnership with Israel is about more than money; it's about a strategic alliance that has a proven track record of strengthening U.S. interests. While the billions spent by nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia often come with little transparency and limited reciprocity, the U.S.-Israel partnership is negotiated in the open, with bipartisan support, and delivers tangible benefits that save American lives and fuel our economy.
Ultimately, the critique of U.S. aid to Israel as a "drain" is a distraction. The real question isn't whether the aid is a cost, but whether the alliance is a strategic victory. The evidence suggests it is.
So, What’s the Takeaway?
If you’re critiquing foreign influence, look at Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia—whose billions buy universities and newsrooms with little transparency. Israel’s partnership, by contrast, strengthens U.S. interests with every dollar. This isn’t about Zionist power—it’s about a strategic alliance that delivers.
And here’s the bottom line: the myths collapse under scrutiny. Aid to Israel is not a drain, not unconditional, not disproportionate, and not proof of “control.” It is one of America’s best investments—an investment in shared security, technological innovation, and democratic partnership.
The real danger isn’t the aid—it’s the narrative. Because when critics recycle disproven myths under a veneer of policy analysis, they’re not just questioning budgets. They’re giving oxygen to an ancient prejudice dressed up in modern clothes.
What do you think? Drop your thoughts below—I’d love to hear your take!
Myths vs. Facts About U.S. Aid to Israel
Myth 1: U.S. aid to Israel is a drain on American taxpayers.
Fact: The $3.8B annual allocation is less than 0.1% of the federal budget. Most of it must be spent on U.S.-made defense products, creating American jobs and fueling our tech sector.
Myth 2: Israel gets more aid than any other country.
Fact: Israel is a top recipient, but far from the only one. Egypt ($1.3B), Jordan ($1B+), and Ukraine ($3B+ in recent years) also receive major U.S. assistance. Singling out Israel ignores the broader context of U.S. global strategy.
Myth 3: Israel gives nothing back in return.
Fact: U.S.-Israel defense cooperation has produced the Iron Dome, Trophy APS, F-35 avionics, medical gear, and cybersecurity tools that save American lives. Intelligence sharing has stopped terror plots against the U.S. and allies.
Myth 4: Israel “controls” U.S. foreign policy.
Fact: Israel’s aid package is negotiated in the open, through Congress, with bipartisan votes and clear oversight. By contrast, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and China spend untold billions lobbying, buying media outlets, and funding universities with far less transparency.
Myth 5: Cutting Israel off would save money without consequences.
Fact: Ending the partnership would undermine U.S. military readiness, weaken deterrence against Iran, and hand adversaries a propaganda victory. The cost of losing Israel as a strategic ally would dwarf the annual aid package.