RECENTLY, the renowned US foreign policy institutions and leading think tanks are increasingly asserting that Washington must fundamentally restructure its bilateral ties with Israel, moving away from the historical “blank check” approach in response to Israel’s disregard for international law in Gaza. Amid growing concerns over Israel’s perceived disregard for international law in Gaza, US foreign policy think tanks are urging a strategic reassessment of the bilateral relationship. This shift reflects broader debates on aligning US support with international legal norms and accountability. Such re-evaluation could reshape future military, economic and political cooperation, emphasizing long-term stability over US-Israel unconditional alliance.
America’s leading public policy think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that unconditional support has allowed the Israeli government to operate without accountability, undermining US national interests and democratic values. Similarly, experts at the Atlantic Council warn that Israel’s handling of the Gaza war and its growing isolation on the world stage necessitate a profound shift in foreign policy. In this regard, renowned international relations experts and think tanks are intensely debating whether unmitigated entanglement compromises the US ability to conduct an agile foreign policy in an increasingly competitive global landscape.
In tandem, scholars at the Council on Foreign Relations point to the underlying US dilemma: while successive administrations have reaffirmed their support for a two-state solution, the continuing conflict and military assistance have sparked debates over how US-supplied weaponry is utilized. Consequently, influential voices across the political spectrum are urging policymakers to introduce strict conditions on military aid and align bilateral engagement more closely with global legal frameworks and human rights. The experts increasingly warn that the US alliance with Israel is perceived as a strategic liability, fueling perceptions of American hypocrisy in a multipolar world. Critics argue this steadfast alignment undercuts Washington’s geopolitical credibility, alienates Global South partners and complicates efforts to counter rising rivals like China and Russia in the Middle East.
Additionally, liberal and pragmatic foreign policy experts are increasingly advocating for a recalibration of US-Israel relations to prevent global isolation and protect broader American strategic interests. Analysts argue that unconditional backing compromizes Washington’s moral standing, alienates key partners in the Global South and distracts from other pressing global priorities. Critics from publications like Foreign Affairs argue that the longstanding “no daylight” policy makes the US appear hypocritical on the global stage, limiting its ability to build coalitions against adversaries like Russia and China.
According to recent polling from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, there is a significant decline in unconditional support for Israel, particularly among younger voters and the Democratic base, pushing policymakers to reconsider the political viability of the alliance. Reimagining US Foreign Policy: Pragmatists suggest transitioning toward an ethics-based foreign policy that centers on international law and human rights, which they view as essential to restoring America’s traditional leadership.
Moreover, the experts calling for this shift recommend a pragmatic “realignment” rather than a complete severing of ties, aiming to rebalance the relationship so that it serves US strategic goals rather than entangling America in costly regional disputes. Rising Democratic Opposition: Bipartisan political unanimity has formally fractured. Recently, over 40 Democratic Senators have voted to block specific weapon sales to Israel. Prominent future Democratic presidential contenders are testing sharper rhetoric, increasingly labeling current Israeli governance models as untenable.
And yet, as global power shifts and nations seek balanced foreign policies, America’s perceived bias undermines its credibility and influence. With rising criticism from allies and adversaries alike, this alignment risks isolating the US on international stages, especially when Israel’s actions draw global condemnation. The perception of Washington being overly reliant on Israel—particularly under Netanyahu’s leadership—exacerbates tensions and weakens US soft power. It is fervently argued that many non-aligned and emerging nations view Washington’s unconditional backing of Israel as a glaring double standard, contrasting sharply with US rhetoric on human rights and the rules-based international order.
The American experts profoundly argue that rising powers, particularly China, have actively capitalized on this friction. By expanding diplomatic and economic influence in the region, Beijing and Moscow position themselves as alternative, unbiased mediators, weakening traditional US diplomatic hegemony. Significantly the American public opinion being reshaped by growing regional escalations or prolonged conflicts—such as the US-Iran tensions—draw resources and political capital away from other global priorities, like the Indo-Pacific, forcing the US to navigate a precarious balance between maintaining its security guarantees to Israel and preventing wider regional destabilization/The US Congress’ recent majority vote to disapprove of war against Iran is a glaring indication of a domestic shift in US policy towards Israel.
In conclusion, US foreign policy faces a growing challenge to revisit its relations with Israel, concurrently argued by the leading schools of thought in the US foreign policy: the pragmatists, the realists and the pacifists. As decades of unconditional support for Israel, now seems to be replaced with neo-pragmatism—reoriented with shifting new regional dynamics, domestic opinion and strategic costs. Polling data reflects increasingly critical views of Israel and its leadership among the American populace, shifting the political calculus for Washington policymakers as they attempt to balance foreign commitments with domestic political division. Critics argue that such favoritism erodes trust, particularly among Arab and Muslim-majority nations and weakens US efforts to mediate conflicts or promote multilateralism. While some defend the alliance as strategic, the perception of imbalance risks diminishing America’s moral authority on global issues.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also a Peace and Conflict Studies expert, is member of the European Consortium of Political Research, including Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law.
