The Unbreakable Bond: Deconstructing the Intricacies of the U.S.-Israel Alliance

Introduction: The Paradox of an "Unlikely Alliance"

The relationship between the United States and the State of Israel stands as one of the most durable, complex, and consequential alliances of the post-World War II era. On its face, the depth of this partnership presents a geopolitical paradox. Israel's creation in 1948 was a direct outcome of regional dynamics and historical currents—the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate, and the cataclysm of the Holocaust—in which the United States was not the primary actor. Yet, for over seven decades, this bond has evolved from a contested, cautious recognition into what successive American presidents have termed an "unbreakable" commitment, underwritten by unparalleled military, economic, and diplomatic support.

This report challenges the notion of the alliance as a historically inevitable or purely values-based phenomenon. It argues instead that the U.S.-Israel relationship is a dynamic and multifaceted construct, forged in the crucible of post-war diplomacy, solidified by the strategic imperatives of the Cold War, and sustained by a powerful and unique confluence of mutual interests, deep economic and technological integration, and potent domestic political forces within the United States. To comprehend this "special relationship," one must move beyond simplistic narratives to dissect the intricate machinery of policy, power, and persuasion that has bound the two nations together. This deep dive will deconstruct the relationship from its contested origins, through its transformation into a strategic bulwark, to its current complex state, where institutional pillars remain robust even as the foundational political consensus in America begins to show signs of strain.

Part I: A Contested Genesis: The Birth of Israel and the American Role (1947-1949)

The genesis of the U.S.-Israel relationship was not a foregone conclusion but the outcome of a fierce internal policy battle within the Truman administration. This struggle pitted the cold, strategic calculations of the foreign policy and military establishment against a potent combination of moral imperatives, domestic political pressures, and the President's personal convictions. The American decision to support the creation of a Jewish state was a pivotal moment, but it was one marked by caution, internal dissent, and a clear desire to limit direct U.S. responsibility—a posture that stands in stark contrast to the deep commitment of later eras.

The Post-War Context and the UN Partition Plan

As World War II concluded, the question of Palestine landed at the feet of the newly formed United Nations. The British Empire, exhausted by war and unable to manage the escalating conflict between Jewish aspirations and Arab resistance, announced its intention to terminate its Mandate.¹ The United States, having contributed decisively to the Allied victory, felt a "certain responsibility" for the disposition of territories freed from Ottoman rule after World War I.² This sense of obligation was compounded by long-standing, if not always official, American sympathy for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which had called for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine.²

The Truman administration's initial approach was to support a multilateral solution under the auspices of the UN. The basic instruction to the U.S. delegation was to help achieve a UN recommendation while ensuring the final proposal could not be regarded as an "'American plan'".⁴ President Harry S. Truman was adamant that the United States would not act unilaterally; any commitment of U.S. troops or economic assistance would have to be part of a broader UN program.⁴ The administration did not wish to "replace the British in Palestine nor to accept unilateral responsibility".⁴

When the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) recommended partitioning the territory into separate Arab and Jewish states, the U.S. officially endorsed the plan. Ambassador Herschel Johnson announced American support on October 11, 1947, framing the decision as giving "great weight" to the majority opinion of a UN committee.⁵ This position found strong backing among the American public. A Gallup poll from October 1947 showed that 65% of Americans favored the partition plan, with only 10% opposed.⁷

Behind the scenes, however, the U.S. played a far more active role. Both the U.S. and the USSR were instrumental in lobbying for the plan, and without American leadership and pressure, the necessary two-thirds majority in the General Assembly would likely not have been obtained.⁵ This pressure was not solely governmental. Declassified documents note that "various unauthorized U.S. nationals and organizations, including members of Congress," heavily lobbied foreign delegates to secure their votes for partition.⁵ President Truman himself acknowledged the scale of this domestic campaign, noting he had received "about 35,000 pieces of mail and propaganda from the Jews in this country" on the matter.⁶

The Truman Doctrine: A Fierce Internal Debate

The decision to support partition was the result of one of the most intense internal policy clashes of the early Cold War. The U.S. foreign policy establishment—led by the Departments of State and War, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and prominent diplomats like George Kennan and Loy Henderson—was almost uniformly opposed to the creation of a Jewish state.³ Their opposition was not based on sentiment but on a sober, realpolitik assessment of American strategic interests in the nascent Cold War.

Their core arguments, articulated in a series of high-level memoranda and meetings, centered on three primary fears:

1. Soviet Encroachment: The creation of a Jewish state against the will of the Arab majority would create "deep-seated antagonism" for the United States throughout the Muslim world.⁵ This, they feared, would open a strategic vacuum that the Soviet Union could exploit, allowing Moscow to replace American and British influence in a region of immense geopolitical importance.⁶
2. Access to Oil: Palestine was strategically located as an outlet for Middle Eastern oil, which was vital to the security of the United States and the reconstruction of Europe.⁵ Alienating the Arab oil-producing nations, the State Department warned, could lead to a potentially catastrophic restriction on oil supplies.³
3. Regional War and Instability: The foreign policy establishment correctly predicted that partition would lead to immediate and widespread violence.⁵ Secretary of Defense James Forrestal warned President Truman that any serious attempt to implement partition could necessitate a "partial mobilization of United States armed forces".⁶

Arrayed against this formidable institutional consensus was President Truman, influenced by a circle of White House advisors like Clark Clifford and a different set of imperatives.⁹ Truman's motivations were a complex blend of the personal, the political, and the humanitarian:

1. The Holocaust's Moral Imperative: Truman was profoundly moved by the plight of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust languishing in Displaced Persons camps across Europe.⁹ A key objective for him became the admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees into Palestine, a goal that aligned with the creation of a Jewish state.³
2. Domestic Political Realities: The vibrant and highly organized American Zionist movement exerted immense pressure on the White House.⁶ With the 1948 presidential election approaching, the support of Jewish voters in key states was a significant political consideration that Truman, the politician, could not ignore.¹¹
3. Personal and Ideological Convictions: Truman's Baptist upbringing and deep familiarity with the Bible gave him a personal sympathy for the idea of a Jewish return to their ancient homeland.⁹ Furthermore, he framed his support in terms of the cherished American principle of "self-determination," a concept championed by former President Woodrow Wilson.⁸

This clash between the strategic pragmatists at the State Department and the politically and morally motivated White House defined the U.S. approach. The State Department, seeing the impending chaos, made a last-ditch effort in early 1948 to promote a temporary UN trusteeship for Palestine as an alternative to partition, a plan Truman briefly considered but ultimately rejected.³ The president's decision was made; the White House had won. This outcome established a foundational dynamic in the U.S.-Israel relationship: from its very inception, domestic political considerations and moral arguments could decisively override the consensus of the U.S. strategic apparatus.

Recognition and its Aftermath

On May 14, 1948, as the British Mandate expired, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. Just eleven minutes later, the White House issued a terse press release: "The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel".⁸ The speed and manner of the announcement were a final, stunning rebuke to the State Department. Top-ranking officials, including Secretary of State George Marshall, and the U.S. delegation to the UN were not notified in advance and were infuriated by the president's move.⁸

The nature of the recognition was itself a product of caution. The administration granted de facto ("in fact") recognition, acknowledging the reality of the new state's control on the ground, but withheld de jure ("by law") recognition.¹⁵ This was a deliberate policy choice, allowing for practical working relationships while stopping short of the full diplomatic prestige and legal entitlements, such as personal diplomatic immunity for representatives, that come with de jure status.¹⁵ Full legal recognition was not extended until January 31, 1949, following Israel's first democratic elections.¹⁶

The immediate consequences were exactly as the State Department had predicted. The Arab world reacted with fury. On May 15, the armies of Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the former Mandate territory, beginning the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.¹² For Palestinians, this event became known as the Nakba, or "catastrophe," during which over 700,000 people—more than half of the Palestinian Arab population—fled or were expelled from their homes.¹

During the ensuing war, U.S. policy reverted to a stance of official neutrality. Washington maintained an arms embargo against all belligerents and did not become directly involved in the armistice negotiations that followed.¹⁷ The primary American concern was that the instability should not upset the broader balance of power with the Soviet Union.¹⁷ However, the damage to America's standing in the Arab world was profound and lasting. The widespread belief that the U.S. had no political motives inimical to Arab welfare, a foundation built over decades by missionaries, educators, and businessmen, was shattered.⁵ The United States, once seen as a champion of self-determination, was now viewed as the primary sponsor of the state whose creation had led to the displacement of the Palestinian people.¹⁹

Part II: From Sympathy to Strategy: The Cold War Transformation (1949-1973)

The two decades following Israel's creation saw the U.S.-Israel relationship transform from one of arm's-length sympathy into an indispensable strategic partnership. This evolution was not preordained. It was a direct consequence of the escalating Cold War, where the Middle East became a critical theater of competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Israel's value as a strategic asset to Washington grew in direct proportion to Moscow's influence in the Arab world. The wars of 1967 and 1973 were the crucibles in which this modern alliance was truly forged, shifting the basis of the relationship from humanitarian concern and domestic politics to the hard currency of geopolitical strategy.

The Early Years: A Cautious Distance (1949-1967)

In the first decade of Israel's existence, U.S. policy was characterized by a studied even-handedness. The primary American objective was to prevent the Arab-Israeli conflict from becoming a proxy war and to contain the spread of Soviet influence.¹⁷ Washington adhered to the 1950 Tripartite Declaration, a joint commitment with Britain and France to limit arms sales to the region and oppose aggression from any side.²¹ During the 1956 Suez Crisis, the Eisenhower administration sided against Israel, Britain, and France, forcing them to withdraw from Egypt. For its part, Israel initially pursued a policy of non-alignment, seeking to maintain relations with and receive aid from both the Western and Soviet blocs.²²

The main thrust of U.S. strategy in the region was to build a "northern tier" of anti-communist alliances with conservative Arab states and regional powers like Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan.²⁰ In this context, a close alliance with Israel was seen as a strategic liability. As Secretary of State John Foster Dulles observed, overtly "backing Israel might be very costly to vital United States national interests" by pushing Arab nations toward Moscow.²⁰

The strategic calculus began to shift in the early 1960s. The catalyst was the deepening relationship between the Soviet Union and radical Arab nationalist regimes, particularly Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt. Massive Soviet arms sales to Egypt and Syria began to threaten Israel's military superiority.²¹ Policymakers in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations grew concerned that a conventionally weakened Israel might feel compelled to launch a preemptive war or, more alarmingly, develop and brandish a nuclear arsenal to ensure its survival.²¹ After diplomatic efforts to broker a regional arms control agreement failed, the U.S. made a pivotal policy change. In 1962, President Kennedy authorized the sale of defensive HAWK anti-aircraft missiles.²⁵ This was followed by a more significant move under President Johnson, who, in 1965 and 1966, agreed to sell Israel offensive weapons, including M48A3 tanks and A-4 Skyhawk fighter jets.²¹ This decision marked a definitive break from the policy of restraint and established the foundational U.S. commitment to maintaining Israel's Qualitative Military Edge (QME).

The 1967 Six-Day War: A Strategic Reassessment

The Six-Day War in June 1967 was a watershed moment. While the immediate trigger involved a series of escalations—including false Soviet intelligence reports, Nasser's closure of the Straits of Tiran, and the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers—the outcome fundamentally altered Washington's perception of Israel.²¹ Israel, fighting primarily with French-supplied aircraft and its own ingenuity, achieved a stunning and decisive victory in a matter of days against the Soviet-equipped armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

The war's result had two profound effects on U.S. strategic thinking. First, it demonstrated Israel's overwhelming military prowess. Israel was no longer seen as a fragile state in need of protection, but as a formidable regional military power. Second, by single-handedly defeating the Soviet Union's principal Arab clients, Israel proved its value as a potent pro-Western counterweight to Soviet influence in the Middle East.²⁵ The perception of Israel shifted from that of a strategic liability to a valuable strategic asset. As France, Israel's main military supplier, imposed an arms embargo after the war, the United States stepped in to fill the void. In 1968, President Johnson approved the sale of advanced F-4 Phantom fighter jets, cementing the U.S. role as Israel's primary patron and guarantor of its military superiority.²⁵

The 1973 Yom Kippur War: The Alliance Solidified

If the 1967 war established Israel's potential as a strategic partner, the 1973 Yom Kippur War solidified the alliance in a bond of mutual dependence. The coordinated surprise attack by Egypt and Syria on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar shattered the post-1967 myth of Israeli invincibility.²⁷ In the initial days of the war, Israeli forces suffered staggering losses in personnel and equipment and were pushed back in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Facing a potential defeat, Israel turned to the United States for emergency resupply.

President Richard Nixon's response was unequivocal. Overcoming initial reluctance from the Pentagon, which feared depleting its own stockpiles in Europe, Nixon ordered a massive, strategic airlift codenamed Operation Nickel Grass.²⁸ Famously telling his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, to "send everything that will fly," the administration launched an unprecedented logistical operation that, at its peak, delivered thousands of tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and other vital materiel to Israel.²⁸ This airlift, larger in scope than the 1948 Berlin Airlift, was instrumental in turning the tide of the war. It enabled the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to stabilize the fronts, launch a devastating counteroffensive that encircled the Egyptian Third Army, and drive Syrian forces back from the Golan Heights.²⁷

The 1973 war had a transformative and lasting impact on the U.S.-Israel relationship. It made Israel heavily and undeniably dependent on the American military-industrial pipeline for its survival in a high-intensity conflict.²⁷ This dependency, however, was not a one-way street. It became Washington's most powerful diplomatic tool. Kissinger masterfully leveraged this new reality. The massive flow of U.S. arms served as both a carrot and a stick, allowing him to pressure a victorious but exhausted Israel into accepting ceasefires and engaging in post-war disengagement talks.²⁷ Simultaneously, America's ability to both resupply and restrain Israel demonstrated to Arab leaders, particularly Egypt's Anwar Sadat, that only Washington—not Moscow—could deliver a political settlement and the return of occupied territory. This diplomatic masterstroke effectively sidelined the Soviet Union in the Middle East and paved the direct road to the U.S.-brokered Camp David Accords and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty just a few years later. The symbiotic cycle of military dependence and diplomatic influence born in the crucible of the 1973 war would become the defining characteristic of the U.S.-Israel strategic alliance for the next half-century.

Part III: The Pillars of the Modern Alliance: A Symbiotic Partnership

The contemporary U.S.-Israel relationship rests on a deeply institutionalized architecture of military, technological, and economic cooperation that is unparalleled in American foreign policy. This is not a traditional alliance based solely on a defense pact; it is a symbiotic partnership characterized by a level of integration that makes the two nations' security and innovation ecosystems deeply intertwined. This section dissects the three core pillars of this modern bond: an unbreakable military commitment, an integrated economic and technological engine, and a unique fusion of intelligence capabilities.

The Unbreakable Military Bond

The military dimension of the alliance is its most visible and robust component, built upon a foundation of massive financial support, joint technological development, and intimate operational cooperation.

Financial Foundations: The MOU Framework

U.S. security assistance is the "most tangible manifestation" of its commitment to Israel.²⁹ Since World War II, Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid, having received over $174 billion in bilateral assistance and missile defense funding to date.³⁰ This assistance is not an ad-hoc arrangement but is institutionalized through a series of rolling 10-year Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) that provide a predictable, long-term funding stream for Israeli defense planning.³⁴

The current MOU, signed by the Obama administration in 2016 and covering fiscal years 2019 through 2028, is the largest such pledge in U.S. history.³⁶ It commits the United States to providing $38 billion in military aid over the decade.³⁰ This funding is broken down into two main categories: $33 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grants and a $5 billion commitment for joint missile defense programs.³⁹

This aid is not a simple cash transfer. The terms of the MOU stipulate that the vast majority of FMF funds must be used to purchase advanced military equipment from U.S. defense contractors.³⁵ This effectively functions as a major investment in the American defense-industrial base, supporting thousands of U.S. jobs.²⁹ The aid enables Israel to acquire the most sophisticated U.S. military technology, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, thereby ensuring its Qualitative Military Edge (QME)—a cornerstone of U.S. policy enshrined in law, which mandates that Israel maintain the ability to counter any credible conventional military threat.³⁵

Table 1: U.S. Security Assistance to Israel under the 2019-2028 MOU. Data compiled from multiple sources detailing the terms of the agreement.³⁹

Technological Supremacy: Joint Missile Defense

A central pillar of the military partnership is the joint development of Israel's multi-layered missile defense architecture. This collaboration goes far beyond a simple buyer-seller relationship, representing a deeply integrated R&D partnership that provides tangible benefits to both nations' defense capabilities.

• Iron Dome: This lower-tier system is designed to intercept short-range rockets and mortars, the primary threat from Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. While initially an Israeli innovation, its development, production, and replenishment have been heavily funded by the U.S. The American defense firm Raytheon is a key partner in producing components, many of which are manufactured in the United States.⁴²
• David's Sling: This middle-tier system targets larger rockets, short-range ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles. It was co-developed from the outset by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and the U.S.-based Raytheon, filling a critical gap in the defense shield.⁴³
• The Arrow System (Arrow-2 and Arrow-3): Forming the upper tier of Israel's defense, the Arrow system is designed to intercept long-range ballistic missiles, with Arrow-3 capable of engaging threats outside the Earth's atmosphere. This program has been a joint U.S.-Israel venture with Boeing since its inception in 1986. The data and technology generated from the Arrow program have provided critical insights for America's own missile defense programs.⁴³

This integrated development model means U.S. investment not only protects Israel but also advances American defense technology, creating a powerful cycle of mutual benefit.

Eyes and Ears: Intelligence Fusion

Intelligence sharing has been a cornerstone of the relationship since a formal liaison channel was established between the CIA and Mossad in 1951.⁴⁸ This cooperation has evolved to meet the threats of each era. During the Cold War, Israel provided the U.S. with invaluable intelligence on Soviet military hardware captured from Arab armies and even a copy of Nikita Khrushchev's secret 1956 speech denouncing Stalin.⁴⁸

After the 9/11 attacks, the focus shifted to counter-terrorism, with Israel's intelligence agencies, drawing on decades of experience, providing the U.S. with vital information on Islamist militant groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda.⁴⁸ The partnership has also extended into the cyber domain, most famously with the Stuxnet computer worm that sabotaged Iran's nuclear centrifuges, a joint U.S.-Israeli operation codenamed "Operation Olympic Games".⁴⁸

The depth of this trust is exemplified by a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its Israeli counterpart, the Israeli SIGINT National Unit (ISNU). Leaked documents revealed that this agreement allows for the sharing of raw signals intelligence, including unminimized data that may contain the phone calls and emails of U.S. persons.⁴⁸ This level of raw data sharing signifies an extraordinary degree of integration, typically reserved for the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance, of which Israel is not a member.⁵⁰

An Integrated Economic Engine

The economic relationship between the U.S. and Israel is as deeply integrated as the military one, built on a pioneering free trade agreement and a unique synergy between their respective innovation hubs.

The 1985 Free Trade Agreement

In 1985, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement (FTA) became the very first free trade pact signed by the United States.¹⁰ This landmark agreement eliminated customs duties and other trade barriers, serving as a model for subsequent U.S. trade policy. The economic impact has been profound: total two-way goods trade has expanded from $4.7 billion in 1985 to over $49 billion in 2023.⁵²

Silicon Wadi Meets Silicon Valley

The heart of the modern economic partnership lies in the high-technology and R&D sectors. Israel, dubbed the "Start-Up Nation," has cultivated an innovation ecosystem second only to Silicon Valley, and American firms are its primary partners and investors. U.S. companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Intel have established major R&D centers in Israel, accounting for nearly two-thirds of the more than 300 such facilities in the country.⁵⁴ The total stock of U.S. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Israel stood at $42.5 billion in 2022, and Israel has more companies listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange than any country besides the U.S., Canada, and China.⁵⁴ Even amid regional instability, American venture capital remains the dominant force in Israeli tech, with U.S. investors accounting for 80% of all foreign investment in 2024.⁵⁶

Binational Foundations for Innovation

A unique and powerful feature of the economic relationship is a trio of binational foundations, established by the two governments to foster joint research and development across different sectors. These institutions create a durable, bottom-up network of collaboration that reinforces the top-down strategic alliance.

1. BIRD (Binational Industrial Research and Development) Foundation (est. 1977): This foundation provides matching funds for joint R&D projects between U.S. and Israeli private companies. It operates on a risk-sharing model, taking no equity, and requiring repayment only if the project generates commercial revenue. BIRD has supported over 1,000 projects that have yielded more than $10 billion in sales.⁵⁷
2. BSF (Binational Science Foundation) (est. 1972): The BSF promotes collaborative research between scientists at American and Israeli universities and research institutions. It has awarded over $1 billion to thousands of projects in basic and applied sciences, and its list of grantees includes 53 Nobel laureates.⁵⁵
3. BARD (Binational Agricultural Research and Development) Fund (est. 1979): BARD focuses on joint agricultural research, developing innovations in areas like water management and crop yields in arid conditions. It has funded over 1,300 projects, and one BARD-supported project to improve poultry feed efficiency is credited with saving the U.S. broiler industry an estimated $800 million.⁶⁶

This deep integration in defense, technology, and science creates an incredibly resilient bond. The relationship is not merely a policy decision made in Washington and Jerusalem; it is reinforced daily by a vast network of engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and intelligence analysts whose collaborative work generates mutual and tangible benefits for both nations.

Part IV: The Domestic Drivers: Politics, Faith, and Influence

The exceptional durability of the U.S.-Israel alliance cannot be fully explained by strategic and economic interests alone. It is anchored in a unique and powerful domestic political ecosystem within the United States. This ecosystem, comprising a highly effective pro-Israel lobby and a politically mobilized Christian Zionist movement, has created a broad and resilient base of support that often insulates the relationship from the typical pressures and debates that shape other areas of American foreign policy. However, the emergence of a progressive counter-narrative has recently begun to challenge this long-standing consensus, turning the issue into a key ideological battleground.

The Power of Persuasion: The Pro-Israel Lobby

At the forefront of organized advocacy is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Founded in 1954, AIPAC has grown into what is widely regarded as one of the most powerful and influential lobbying groups in Washington.⁶⁷ Operating as a 501(c)(4) organization, its stated mission is to advocate for policies that strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship to the legislative and executive branches of government.⁶⁷

AIPAC's influence is multidimensional. It engages in direct lobbying on Capitol Hill, but its real power lies in its nationwide grassroots organization and political sophistication. The organization cultivates a network of "key contacts" for every member of Congress, organizes all-expenses-paid educational trips to Israel for lawmakers and their staff, and mobilizes its more than five million members to advocate for its legislative priorities.⁶⁷ Historically, AIPAC has prided itself on its bipartisan approach, working diligently to ensure that support for Israel remains a consensus issue across both the Democratic and Republican parties.⁶⁸

In recent years, AIPAC has entered directly into electoral politics. Its political action committee, AIPAC PAC, is the largest pro-Israel PAC in America and contributes millions of dollars directly to the campaigns of candidates it deems supportive of its agenda, boasting a 96% win rate for its backed candidates in the 2024 general elections.⁶⁸ This electoral influence, combined with its lobbying prowess, has been instrumental in securing the passage of annual security assistance packages, enacting robust sanctions against Iran, passing the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, and spearheading legislative efforts to combat the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.²⁹

A Divine Mandate: The Rise of Christian Zionism

Providing a parallel and immensely powerful pillar of support is the Christian Zionist movement, composed primarily of tens of millions of American Evangelical Protestants.⁷¹ For this constituency, support for Israel is not a matter of foreign policy calculation but of deep religious conviction. Their worldview is rooted in a theological interpretation of the Bible which holds that the modern State of Israel is the fulfillment of divine prophecy.⁷³

Adherents believe that God's covenant with Abraham is eternal and unconditional, and they often cite Genesis 12:3—"I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse"—as a divine mandate to support the Jewish state.⁷⁶ This support is frequently tied to eschatological beliefs, viewing Israel's existence and control over biblical lands as a necessary precursor to the "End Times" and the Second Coming of Christ.⁷⁵

This theological conviction translates into formidable political power. Organizations like Christians United for Israel (CUFI), founded by Pastor John Hagee, claim a membership of over 10 million, a figure that dwarfs the entire American Jewish population.⁷⁷ As a core component of the Republican Party's base, this voting bloc exerts significant influence on the party's platform and policies.⁷² The support from Christian Zionists is often more absolute and unconditional than that of other pro-Israel groups, extending to a firm belief in Israel's divine right to all lands promised in the Old Testament.⁷⁴ This has led to active lobbying for expansionist Israeli policies and direct financial support for Jewish settlements in the West Bank, actions that are often in direct opposition to official U.S. policy.⁷⁴ The movement's influence was a critical factor in the Trump administration's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move the U.S. embassy there, a long-held goal of the Christian Zionist community.⁷²

The Liberal Zionist Alternative and the Emerging Debate

For decades, the domestic consensus on Israel was largely monolithic. However, the 2008 founding of J Street marked the emergence of an organized, alternative voice within the pro-Israel landscape. J Street bills itself as the "political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans," advocating for a two-state solution as essential to ensuring Israel's long-term future as a secure, democratic, and Jewish homeland.⁸⁰

J Street's platform represents a significant departure from the traditional pro-Israel lobby. While it strongly supports U.S. security assistance to Israel, it also insists that this aid must be used in accordance with U.S. and international law, including provisions related to human rights.⁸³ Unlike AIPAC, which has historically avoided public criticism of the sitting Israeli government, J Street openly opposes policies it views as detrimental to peace, such as settlement expansion, and advocates for active American diplomatic pressure to achieve a two-state solution.⁸⁰

J Street's influence has grown steadily, particularly within the Democratic Party, where its "diplomacy-first" approach resonates with a base that is increasingly critical of Israeli policy. The organization's PAC endorses and raises funds for candidates who align with its vision.⁸² This has created a direct ideological and political contest with AIPAC for influence within the party. As AIPAC's hardline stance has become increasingly controversial for some Democrats, J Street has gained traction. The recent decision by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, long an AIPAC ally, to accept J Street's endorsement for the first time is a clear signal of this shifting dynamic.⁸⁶ In response, AIPAC has intensified its electoral strategy, spending tens of millions of dollars in Democratic primaries to defeat progressive incumbents it labels "anti-Israel," thereby escalating the conflict for the "soul of the Democratic Party" on this issue.⁸⁷ The once-solid bipartisan consensus has fractured, transforming the U.S.-Israel relationship into a contentious intra-party battleground.

Part V: Diplomatic Alignment and Global Divergence

The deep strategic partnership between the United States and Israel manifests most starkly on the international stage, where Washington frequently provides a diplomatic shield for Jerusalem. This alignment, however, often places the U.S. at odds with the broader international community and even its closest European allies. The key flashpoints of this divergence are the United Nations Security Council, the question of Palestinian statehood, and the strategic approach to Iran, revealing a fundamental transatlantic schism in both policy and perspective.

The Shield at the UN

The United States has consistently used its position as a permanent, veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council to protect Israel from international censure. This diplomatic protection is a direct extension of the strategic alliance. Since 1972, the U.S. has cast its veto on at least 53 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel—far more than it has used its veto for any other issue or ally.¹⁰ Between 1991 and 2011 alone, 15 of the 24 vetoes invoked by the U.S. were to shield Israel.¹⁰

The official rationale for these vetoes typically centers on the argument that the resolutions are "one-sided," "counterproductive," fail to condemn Palestinian terrorism, or attempt to impose solutions that can only be reached through direct negotiations between the parties.⁹⁰ This veto power has been deployed to block a wide range of resolutions, including those condemning:

• Israeli settlement expansion in the occupied territories, which most of the world, including the International Court of Justice, considers illegal under international law.⁹⁰
• Israeli military operations in Gaza and Lebanon.⁹⁰
• The U.S. decision under the Trump administration to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.⁹⁰
• Calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the war that followed the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack.⁹¹

While the U.S. views these actions as defending a key ally from biased international scrutiny, many other nations, including its European partners, see them as undermining international law and enabling the very Israeli policies that obstruct a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

The Palestinian Question: A Transatlantic Divide

Nowhere is the divergence between the U.S. and Europe more apparent than on the issue of Palestinian statehood. While both sides officially endorse a two-state solution as the desired outcome, their strategies for achieving it are fundamentally different and increasingly incompatible.

U.S. Policy: The long-standing American position is that a Palestinian state can only be realized as the outcome of a negotiated final-status agreement between Israelis and Palestinians.⁹⁷ Consequently, the U.S. does not officially recognize the State of Palestine and has consistently opposed Palestinian efforts to gain full membership at the United Nations, viewing such moves as unilateral actions that circumvent the peace process.⁹⁸ The U.S. has used its Security Council veto to block Palestinian bids for full UN membership and, under U.S. law, is required to cut funding to any UN agency that grants Palestine full member status.⁹⁷

European Policy: The European Union and its member states also officially support a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps.¹⁰² However, faced with a moribund peace process and accelerating Israeli settlement construction, a growing number of European countries have broken with the U.S. approach. As of late 2025, 17 of the 27 EU member states have formally recognized the State of Palestine.¹⁰⁴ This trend has accelerated recently, with countries like Ireland, Spain, Norway, France, and Portugal extending recognition as a political statement aimed at preserving the viability of the two-state solution before it is rendered impossible by facts on the ground.¹⁰⁵

Furthermore, European powers like the UK, France, and Germany are far more explicit and consistent in their legal position on Israeli settlements, regularly issuing joint statements declaring them "illegal under international law" and an "obstacle to peace".¹⁰⁹ This reflects a different theory of change: where the U.S. prioritizes the sanctity of a bilateral negotiating process that has stalled for years, many European states are now using the diplomatic tool of recognition to create new pressure and re-level what they see as a profoundly imbalanced playing field.

A Shared Adversary: The Iran Calculus

While the U.S. and Europe diverge on the Palestinian issue, the U.S. and Israel find powerful strategic alignment in their shared perception of Iran as a primary threat to regional stability. This mutual concern over Iran's nuclear program and its network of proxy forces—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in Gaza—is a central pillar of the modern security partnership.²⁹

This shared threat assessment has led to unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation aimed at countering Iran. The U.S. and Israel conduct frequent, large-scale joint military exercises, such as "Juniper Oak," which simulate complex scenarios including long-range aerial strikes on targets in Iran.¹¹⁴ These drills serve as a powerful deterrent and a clear signal of a coordinated military posture. Evidence also points to direct joint covert operations, such as the "Operation Midnight Hammer" strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and the Stuxnet cyberattack.¹¹⁸

However, even on Iran, a tactical divergence has emerged, again pitting the U.S. and Europe on opposite sides. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or Iran nuclear deal, was a landmark diplomatic achievement negotiated by the Obama administration alongside the E3 (UK, France, and Germany), Russia, and China.¹¹⁹ The Israeli government, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vehemently opposed the deal, arguing it did not go far enough to dismantle Iran's nuclear infrastructure.¹¹⁸ The Trump administration withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA in 2018, aligning with the Israeli position and re-imposing sanctions. In contrast, the European powers have consistently worked to preserve the agreement, viewing it as the most effective non-military tool to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.¹²⁰ This disagreement highlights a fundamental difference in strategic preference: Israel often favors military preemption and maximum pressure, while Europe prioritizes diplomacy and a rules-based international order.

Conclusion: An Alliance at a Crossroads?

The U.S.-Israel relationship, forged in the strategic crucible of the Cold War and institutionalized through decades of unparalleled military, economic, and technological integration, remains one of the most robust alliances in the world. The institutional pillars—the 10-year security MOUs, the joint development of critical defense systems, the deep intelligence sharing, and the web of binational innovation—are designed for long-term stability and are not easily dismantled. However, this formidable architecture was constructed upon a foundational bedrock of broad, bipartisan domestic political support in the United States. Today, that bedrock is cracking. The alliance now faces its most significant challenge in a generation, not from external threats, but from a profound and accelerating shift within American society and its political landscape.

The Shifting Bedrock: Partisan and Generational Divides

The era of a broad national consensus on the U.S.-Israel relationship is over. Polling data reveals a dramatic erosion of support, driven by deep partisan and generational divides that have been widening for years and have been sharply accelerated by recent conflicts.

Recent surveys paint a stark picture. American sympathy for Israelis has fallen to a 25-year low, while sympathy for Palestinians has concurrently risen.¹²³ A Pew Research Center poll found that a majority of Americans (59%) now hold an unfavorable opinion of the Israeli government, and a plurality (39%) believe Israel's military operation in Gaza is "going too far".¹²⁵

This shift is not uniform across the political spectrum; it is overwhelmingly concentrated within the Democratic Party and among younger Americans. A 2025 Gallup survey revealed a stunning 56-point swing among Democrats since 2017; the party's voters, who once sympathized more with Israelis, now sympathize more with Palestinians by a massive margin.¹²⁷ Conversely, Republican sympathy for Israel remains overwhelmingly high.¹²⁶ This chasm is reflected in policy preferences: Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to believe the U.S. provides "too much" military aid to Israel and to disapprove of Israel's military actions.¹²⁶

Perhaps more consequentially for the long-term future of the alliance, a significant generational gap has opened within both parties. Younger Americans are consistently and significantly less sympathetic to Israel than their elders.¹²⁴ A Northeastern University survey found that younger Republicans are "way less sympathetic to Israel than older Republicans," indicating the trend is not purely a function of progressive ideology.¹³⁰ This generational divide even extends to the evangelical community, a traditional bastion of support. While overall evangelical backing for Israel remains strong, polls show that younger evangelicals (under 35) are markedly less supportive of Israel, both politically and theologically, than older generations.⁷¹

Table 2: The Partisan and Generational Divide in U.S. Views on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Data compiled and synthesized from multiple public opinion polls conducted between 2017 and 2025.⁷

Fractures in the Political Consensus

These seismic shifts in public opinion are now manifesting as open fractures in the political establishment. The Democratic Party is in the midst of an internal struggle over its platform on Israel. The recent decision by the Democratic National Committee to withdraw a standard resolution reaffirming support for a two-state solution was a clear concession to the party's ascendant progressive wing, which is pushing for a much tougher stance, including conditioning or restricting military aid.¹³² This reflects the growing influence of advocacy groups like J Street and the declining ability of AIPAC to enforce a hardline consensus within the party.⁸⁶

The Republican Party is not immune to these pressures. While its leadership remains staunchly pro-Israel, an "undeclared civil war" is brewing within its ranks.¹³⁴ A growing isolationist, "America First" faction has begun to question the financial costs of the alliance, while the party establishment struggles to contain the rise of far-right voices that have been accused of trafficking in antisemitic rhetoric.¹³⁴

Future Outlook: An Alliance Tested

The U.S.-Israel alliance is at a historic inflection point. The institutional architecture of the relationship remains formidable, designed to withstand political turbulence. However, that architecture was built for a different political climate. The trends are clear: the domestic political foundation that has unconditionally supported the alliance for half a century is eroding.

The partisan polarization of the issue means that U.S. policy toward Israel is likely to become increasingly volatile, swinging more dramatically with changes in administration. The generational divide suggests that these trends are not temporary but are likely to intensify as younger, more skeptical cohorts gain political power.

The future of the "special relationship" will be defined by its capacity to adapt to this new and contested landscape. The era of automatic consensus is definitively over. It is being replaced by an era of contention, where the terms, conditions, and even the core assumptions of the alliance will be subject to a level of public scrutiny and political debate that it has long been insulated from. The bond may not break, but it will be tested, and likely transformed, in the years to come.

Works cited

1. History of the Question of Palestine - UN.org., accessed on November 3, 2025
2. A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 - United States Position on Palestine Question - Statement by Herschel V. Johnson, United States Deputy Representative to the United Nations, October 11, 1947 - Avalon Project, accessed on November 3, 2025
3. Creation of Israel, 1948 - Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
4. Historical Documents - Office of the Historian, accessed on November 3, 2025
5. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2 - Historical Documents - Office of the Historian, accessed on November 3, 2025
6. U.S. Administration on the Partition of Palestine: Timeline of Events - JVP, accessed on November 3, 2025
7. Gallup Vault: Americans Backed 1947 Palestine Partition Plan, accessed on November 3, 2025
8. U.S. Recognition of the State of Israel | National Archives, accessed on November 3, 2025
9. The Origins of the U.S.-Israeli Relationship: Truman and the Jewish ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
10. Israel–United States relations - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
11. Benson: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel | Institute for Palestine Studies, accessed on November 3, 2025
12. Press Release Announcing U.S. Recognition of Israel (1948) | National Archives, accessed on November 3, 2025
13. Statement by the President Announcing Recognition of the State of Israel, accessed on November 3, 2025
14. Harry Truman Document Signed US Recognition Israel - The Raab Collection, accessed on November 3, 2025
15. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 2 - Historical Documents - Office of the Historian, accessed on November 3, 2025
16. Press Release Announcing U.S. De Jure Recognition of the State of Israel - DocsTeach, accessed on November 3, 2025
17. Milestones: The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 - Office of the Historian, accessed on November 3, 2025
18. 1948 Arab-Israeli War | Summary, Outcome, Casualties, & Timeline | Britannica, accessed on November 3, 2025
19. Arab–American relations - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
20. Arab−Israeli Wars and US Foreign Policy 1948: The Creation of Israel and the Nakba - UCL Discovery, accessed on November 3, 2025
21. The 1967 Arab-Israeli War - Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
22. "The Roots of the U.S.-Israel Relationship: How the Cold War Tensions P" by Ariel Gomberg, accessed on November 3, 2025
23. U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East since the 19th Century - TeachMideast, accessed on November 3, 2025
24. Arab-Israeli Wars and US Foreign Relations | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, accessed on November 3, 2025
25. The Blogs: How The U.S.' Alliance With Israel Was Formed ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
26. US Aid to Israel - MERIP - Middle East Research and Information Project, accessed on November 3, 2025
27. 1 CHAPTER 9 Arms to Israel and Shuttle Diplomacy The October ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
28. America's Airlift in the 1973 Yom Kippur War » Richard Nixon ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
29. Congress and the U.S.-Israel Relationship - Background - AIPAC, accessed on November 3, 2025
30. U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Overview and Developments since October 7, 2023 - Congress.gov, accessed on November 3, 2025
31. U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Overview and ... - Congress.gov, accessed on November 3, 2025
32. U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Overview and Developments since October 7, 2023 - Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report - LegiStorm, accessed on November 3, 2025
33. U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Overview and Developments since October 7, 2023, accessed on November 3, 2025
34. Israel's New MOU: The Money and the Message | The Washington Institute, accessed on November 3, 2025
35. U.S. Security Assistance to Israel - AIPAC, accessed on November 3, 2025
36. Statement by the President on the Memorandum of Understanding Reached with Israel, accessed on November 3, 2025
37. www.congress.gov, accessed on November 3, 2025
38. CRS Report: U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel - No Way to Treat a Child, accessed on November 3, 2025
39. FACT SHEET: Memorandum of Understanding Reached with Israel ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
40. Memorandum of Understanding - State.gov, accessed on November 3, 2025
41. U.S. Security Cooperation with Israel - United States Department of State, accessed on November 3, 2025
42. 15 things you don't know about Israel's air defense systems - Unpacked, accessed on November 3, 2025
43. Israel – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, accessed on November 3, 2025
44. Iron Dome System and SkyHunter Missile | Raytheon - RTX, accessed on November 3, 2025
45. David's Sling - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
46. Arrow (missile family) - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
47. us-israel missile defense collaboration from 1983 to 2016 - Creighton ResearchWorks, accessed on November 3, 2025
48. Israeli espionage in the United States - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
49. U.S.-Israel Intelligence Collaboration - Jewish Virtual Library, accessed on November 3, 2025
50. NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans' data with Israel ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
51. NSA Intelligence Relationship with Israel | American Civil Liberties Union, accessed on November 3, 2025
52. Outcomes of Current U.S. Trade Agreements - United States Department of State, accessed on November 3, 2025
53. Israel–United States Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
54. 2024 Investment Climate Statements - Israel - State Department, accessed on November 3, 2025
55. 7 Decades of Innovation in Israel: Science and Technology Partnerships - Reform Judaism, accessed on November 3, 2025
56. The-State of Israeli High-Tech in 2024 - RISE Israel, accessed on November 3, 2025
57. Binational Cooperative Program/Israel-US Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation - Homeland Security, accessed on November 3, 2025
58. BIRD - Israel - USA - English Innovation Site, accessed on November 3, 2025
59. BIRD Foundation - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
60. Binational Industrial Research & Development Foundation (BIRD) - Jewish Virtual Library, accessed on November 3, 2025
61. BIRD Foundation | Israel-U.S. R&D Funding for Innovation, accessed on November 3, 2025
62. Homepage - BSF, accessed on November 3, 2025
63. BSF-US-Israel Binational Science Foundation, accessed on November 3, 2025
64. United States – Israel Binational Science Foundation - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
65. U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) - Jewish Virtual Library, accessed on November 3, 2025
66. Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund | Tellus, accessed on November 3, 2025
67. AIPAC - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
68. AIPAC, accessed on November 3, 2025
69. The Israeli State and Its influence on U.S. Foreign Policy, accessed on November 3, 2025
70. AIPAC's and Israel's influence is falling in Congress, two opposing letters show just how much - Mondoweiss, accessed on November 3, 2025
71. Evangelical support for Israel constant, but future shift indicated, new study finds, accessed on November 3, 2025
72. American Evangelicals' Support for Israel | Chicago Council on ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
73. Biblical Christian Zionism 101 - ICEJ, accessed on November 3, 2025
74. The Impact of Christian Zionism on American Policy - Columbia International Affairs Online, accessed on November 3, 2025
75. American Christian Zionism and Israeli-Palestinian Relations — The ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
76. Christian Zionism: A Major Unrecognized Force in Support of Israel - SURJ Bay Area, accessed on November 3, 2025
77. The Politics of Apocalypse: The Rise of American Evangelical Zionism - LSE Blogs, accessed on November 3, 2025
78. Why American evangelical Christians have deep ties to supporting Israel - PBS, accessed on November 3, 2025
79. Christian Zionism and Its Influence on Trump's Israel Policy* - DergiPark, accessed on November 3, 2025
80. Organization J Street is the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans. The organization gives political voice to main, accessed on November 3, 2025
81. J Street - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
82. About Us - J Street, accessed on November 3, 2025
83. US Security Assistance to Israel - J Street, accessed on November 3, 2025
84. JStreetPAC Endorsement Criteria and Process, accessed on November 3, 2025
85. Who Speaks for Israel? J Street and the Rise of the Pro-Peace Israel Lobby in America, accessed on November 3, 2025
86. Democrats Pull Away From AIPAC, Reflecting a Broader Shift - GV ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
87. AIPAC Demands Democrats 'Stand With Israel' - The American Prospect, accessed on November 3, 2025
88. AIPAC's Aggressive Spending Is Bad for the Democratic Party — and Democracy Itself, accessed on November 3, 2025
89. The Corporate Power Brokers Behind AIPAC's War on the Squad - In These Times, accessed on November 3, 2025
90. A history of the US blocking UN resolutions against Israel | Israel ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
91. U.S. again vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding Gaza ceasefire, hostage release | PBS News, accessed on November 3, 2025
92. Veto of the United Nations Security Council Resolution on Gaza - State Department, accessed on November 3, 2025
93. Legality of Israeli settlements - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
94. How the US has used its veto power at the UN in support of Israel - Al Jazeera, accessed on November 3, 2025
95. GAZA LIVE: US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding unrestricted flow of aid, accessed on November 3, 2025
96. Security Council: US votes against resolution on Gaza ceasefire - UN News, accessed on November 3, 2025
97. What Is U.S. Policy on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? - Council on Foreign Relations, accessed on November 3, 2025
98. Palestine–United States relations - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
99. en.wikipedia.org, accessed on November 3, 2025
100. Palestinian Territories - United States Department of State, accessed on November 3, 2025
101. A Timeline of U.S. Policy Toward Palestine | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed on November 3, 2025
102. The two-state solution: The EU in search for a realistic plan for Israeli-Palestinian co-existence - The Brussels Times, accessed on November 3, 2025
103. The EU and the Middle East Peace Process | EEAS, accessed on November 3, 2025
104. France and four other EU countries ready, states that recognise Palestine almost 160, accessed on November 3, 2025
105. Palestine–European Union relations - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
106. Growing list of EU states to recognise Palestine, fearing Israeli 'genocide' - EUobserver, accessed on November 3, 2025
107. 3 European countries will recognize Palestine as a state - YouTube, accessed on November 3, 2025
108. International recognition of Palestine - Wikipedia, accessed on November 3, 2025
109. Germany stands by Israel | Federal Government - Bundesregierung, accessed on November 3, 2025
110. Israeli settlements: statement by France, Germany, Italy, Spain and ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
111. Germany, UK, France oppose Israeli sovereignty over occupied Palestinian territories, accessed on November 3, 2025
112. Trading Away Peace: How Europe helps sustain illegal Israeli settlements - ACT Alliance EU, accessed on November 3, 2025
113. Israel: Major Issues and U.S. Relations - Congress.gov, accessed on November 3, 2025
114. Message for Iran? Israeli, US air forces complete joint strategic drill - Israel Hayom, accessed on November 3, 2025
115. IDF to hold joint air drills with US, simulating strikes on Iran and ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
116. Israel and US Conduct Joint Aerial Drill Amid Rising Tensions with Iran, accessed on November 3, 2025
117. Iran should be scared: Israel and the US hold joint military drills - Center for Security Policy, accessed on November 3, 2025
118. CSIS Satellite Imagery Analysis Reveals Possible Signs of ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
119. What is the status of Iran's nuclear programme and the JCPOA?, accessed on November 3, 2025
120. NUCLEAR AGREEMENT – JCPOA | EEAS, accessed on November 3, 2025
121. Why Has Europe Stuck Behind the JCPOA? | Royal United Services Institute - RUSI, accessed on November 3, 2025
122. Iran: Statement by the High Representative on the reintroduction of nuclear sanctions and restrictions | EEAS - European Union, accessed on November 3, 2025
123. How American views on Israel and antisemitism have changed since Oct. 7 | PBS News, accessed on November 3, 2025
124. How American views on Israel and antisemitism have changed since Oct. 7, accessed on November 3, 2025
125. Polls and politics point to a sea change in US views on Israel. Will it matter?, accessed on November 3, 2025
126. How Americans View the Israel-Hamas Conflict 2 Years Into the War | Pew Research Center, accessed on November 3, 2025
127. 'Look at the sea change now': Enten on 56-point swing among Dems supporting Palestinians - YouTube, accessed on November 3, 2025
128. Danger Zone: Collapsing Support for Israel Among Democrats - INSS, accessed on November 3, 2025
129. Republicans Favor Trump Approach to Israel-Hamas War, accessed on November 3, 2025
130. A generational divide on views of Israel … in both parties, according ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
131. Dramatic Decrease of Israel Supporters Among Young Evangelicals | Tel Aviv University, accessed on November 3, 2025
132. DNC resolutions committee pulls two-state – The Forward, accessed on November 3, 2025
133. Will Democrats Finally Change Their Stance on Gaza? | Common Dreams, accessed on November 3, 2025
134. Jewish GOP conference pivots to tackling antisemitism within the ..., accessed on November 3, 2025
135. Ted Cruz to Jewish Republicans: Antisemitism is 'an existential crisis in our party', accessed on November 3, 2025
136. Spinning genocide: Why is Israel trying to reframe its war on Gaza? - Al Jazeera, accessed on November 3, 2025