On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of the State of Israel as the British Mandate expired. Israel was not handed stability by the international community. The country was born into war. Within hours of independence, armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded. Israel spent its earliest years fighting for survival while simultaneously building a government, economy, and military from scratch.

For much of its early history, Israel was poor, diplomatically isolated, and surrounded by hostile governments. The country lacked the technological dominance and military strength that define it today. That transformation came through necessity. Constant security threats forced rapid military innovation. Free-market reforms in the 1980s helped modernize the economy. Waves of Jewish immigration dramatically expanded Israel’s workforce and talent pool. The arrival of hundreds of thousands of Jews from the former Soviet Union during the 1990s accelerated Israel’s rise in engineering, medicine, science, and technology. Even with a population now just over 10 million, Israel has global influence far beyond its size.

For decades, support for Israel was considered a standard position across both major American political parties. Israel was viewed as a democratic ally in a region dominated by dictatorships, terrorist organizations, and anti-American regimes. Today, much of the Left has moved sharply against Israel, particularly after the October 7 attacks carried out by Hamas. More surprising is the growing skepticism on the Right, where a faction increasingly frames support for Israel as incompatible with “America First.”

The most common criticism focuses on foreign aid. On the surface, the argument sounds reasonable. The United States faces debt, inflation, border security problems, and domestic infrastructure challenges. Many Americans understandably ask why Washington continues sending billions overseas.

The numbers tell a more complicated story. Under the current U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding, the United States provides roughly $3.8 billion annually to Israel, including $3.3 billion in foreign military financing and $500 million for missile defense cooperation. Much of that funding returns directly to the American economy through defense manufacturing, weapons production, and joint technological development. Programs involving systems such as Iron Dome have also yielded military lessons and technologies that benefit the United States.

Israel also provides significant strategic value. Israeli intelligence has helped prevent terrorist attacks. Israeli military operations provide battlefield lessons against Iranian proxies. Israel has served as one of America’s strongest regional counterweights against Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. No other nation in the Middle East shares the same level of cultural alignment.

Aid also gives Washington leverage. Military dependence allows American presidents to influence Israeli decision-making during conflicts and negotiations. That leverage partially explains why some Israeli officials have discussed reducing long-term dependence on American aid.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently suggested that Israel plans to phase out its reliance on American military aid over the next decade.

Foreign aid alone does not explain the Right’s growing divide on Israel. The deeper issue is the modern Right’s distrust of institutions. For years, conservatives have watched major media outlets, universities, corporations, and cultural institutions push narratives many Americans view as dishonest or politically motivated. That distrust has often been justified.

The problem emerges when every institution connected to Israel becomes viewed through the same lens. Organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Anti-Defamation League have become deeply unpopular among some conservatives. Many argue that AIPAC’s spending model represents excessive political influence, while the ADL has spent years labeling right-leaning voices as extremists too quickly. Those frustrations have increasingly spilled over into broader hostility toward Israel itself.

That is a strategic mistake. Americans should be able to criticize lobbying groups, oppose reckless foreign spending, and reject institutional overreach without abandoning one of America’s most valuable allies. Conflating frustration with political institutions and hostility toward Israel weakens serious foreign policy debate and benefits adversaries like Iran far more than it helps the United States.

Americans should not define themselves as “pro-Israel.” There should not even be a separate political label for supporting Israel. Americans should be pro-America. But a serious pro-America foreign policy should recognize that advancing American interests often means supporting the success of Western democracies abroad, including Israel.

Some of Israel’s defenders argue that growing criticism of Israel on the Right is primarily driven by antisemitism. I do not fully accept that argument. While genuine antisemitism exists and should be confronted directly, many conservatives criticizing Israel are not motivated by hatred of Jews or Israel. Many are reacting to a broader belief that political, media, and foreign policy institutions have become untrustworthy. When Israel becomes framed as a mandatory loyalty test tied to those same institutions, skepticism predictably grows.

Supporters of Israel make a strategic mistake when they treat every criticism of the country as antisemitism. Reckless accusations alienate people who may disagree on foreign policy but are not acting out of bigotry. Constantly labeling critics as antisemites weakens the seriousness of actual antisemitism and pushes more people away from productive conversations.

The stronger argument for Israel has never been emotional blackmail or political litmus tests. Israel remains one of America’s closest democratic allies in a region dominated by authoritarian governments, terrorist organizations, and anti-American regimes. The country provides intelligence cooperation, military innovation, and strategic stability in one of the world’s most volatile regions. Those facts should be enough to justify support.