A Nation that Dwells Alone

Israel’s Need for Strategic Autonomy - A Decoupling from the US 

Since its inception in 1948, Israel has learned to rely on no one. Under arms embargo, the nascent state defeated six Arab armies largely with smuggled World War II–era weapons. This desperation created a doctrine of rapid, decisive wars that had to end in absolute victory — because no other option existed.

Only following the 1967 War did the relationship with the United States turn into an alliance, which offered the battered country certain security guarantees. This political advantage was attractive: wars might still come, but not every war would be existential.

Yet this guarantee has also been a constraint and has forced Israel to kowtow to American global interests beyond the region, strategic priorities within the region, and even to the American domestic politics and the discourse around it.

The result has been a maintenance of the status quo – Israel is forever forbidden to reach again another absolute victory, to expand her territory, or increase her own security on her own terms while the Arab powers around her are economically strengthened and politically driven to unify against the Jewish state. As Jerusalem has become increasingly dependent on the American supply stream of munitions, it has meant that Jerusalem has been forced to subordinate its own security needs to decisions made in Washington.

It was under American auspices that Israel was forced to withdraw from the Sinai in 1956. And after once again turning the Sinai into a launching pad for an invasion, it was America who pressured Israel to accept the infamous land for peace following the 1967 war and returning the Sinai to Egypt.

It meant that Israel was forced to not respond to the defense and cries of her citizens when Iraq launched scud missiles at her major cities – at American insistence.

Recently, it has meant Jerusalem cannot respond to Egyptian violations in the Sinai, despite Cairo breaking multiple articles of the peace agreement. It has meant that Jerusalem must leave its citizens in the north abandoned without protection from Hezbollah rocket fire under the auspices of a ceasefire that exists only on paper.

 

And it means now that Israel must allow Iran to lick its wounds, give it time to rearm, rebuild, and forge new alliances rather than finish the job, all the while new enemies rise in preparation for a new age.

Fundamentally, we must ask ourselves at what cost? Does this relationship with the U.S. hinder us more than it helps us? And if at all, can Israel remain secure while dependent on a superpower whose interests are global and never herself faces the same existential threats?



The Cost of Alignment

The United States is a global power, and naturally she has a finger in nearly every country and every continent on the globe. Where she does not hold influence - as in China, Russia, or Iran - she holds interests in bordering countries explicitly for the purpose of projecting her own strength. She has interests in the Indo-Pacific region, in maintaining the value of her own petrodollar as the quintessential universal currency, in general low prices and availability regarding the global energy markets and more.

Whatever her interests may be, Israel will be expected to align with these priorities even be coerced into accepting them, and Israeli border or internal security is rarely a priority for lawmakers on Capitol Hill or their electorate.

It was American desire to avoid escalation with Russia that long held back Israeli action against Assad. And regarding global energy markets, while Iran has shot freely at Arab pipelines and facilities in the Gulf, it has been the U.S. who has restrained Israel from taking equitable strikes against Iranian facilities.

After October 7th, Israel discovered that some Gazan laborers had served as intelligence assets for Hamas, mapping communities and identifying armed households. Fearing similar risks from workers entering from Judea and Samaria, Jerusalem halted their entry and sought to replace them with workers from India and Thailand. Washington opposed this shift, arguing it would destabilize Palestinian economic conditions and alter the political balance. Through diplomatic pressure, the U.S. ensured that Israel could not restructure its labor system — even when the issue directly affected Israeli civilian security. The Biden administration ultimately ensured that Israel would once again admit this vulnerable and risky labor pool.

Every government has a responsibility to its own citizens first and foremost – and it is from this principle that all governments ultimately rest their legitimacy to their people. The question laid bare; Are the benefits to Jerusalem in serving Washington greater than her own responsibility to her citizenry? And if those in the Knesset believe this to be the case, are they the legitimate rulers of this land, or puppets of other interests. A state founded on Jewish self determination cannot outsource its security to a foreign electorate.

Historical Contrast – Israel Before and After the American Alliance

 

Prior to the dependence on the United States munitions, simply put, Israel fought to win. In 1948 Israel survived its War of Independence with smuggled and recycled weapons systems. Her victory won her authority over contiguous lands without question. In 1956, the second Arab-Israeli war was fought and won within a week and two days. Israel gained France and England, major powers, as allies in the war – not through Jerusalem’s volunteering of herself to be a pawn for these powers but as an equal partner and the main actor in the conflict. And it was during the 6 Day War, alone against the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq, that Israel captured the entirety of the Sinai and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, wrested Judea and Samaria from Jordanian hands, and breached into the overlooking Golan Heights against Syria. All of these accomplishments Israel achieved by her own hands, through both military and political capabilities. Israel survived alone, forged alliances according to her own interests and at her own terms and created strategic depth to protect her citizens.

However, since 1967 and the official recognition of the US-Israeli alliance, a notable difference can be ascertained from the method by which Israel fights her wars. She no longer fights to win, but fights to stalemate. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and despite the nature of the surprise attack against the state, it was Washington that pressured and prevented Israel from further advancing against either Syria or Egypt to consolidate their victory. And it was again America that during the 1982 Lebanon War pressured Israel into abandoning her Christian-Maronite allies, whose lack of international support resulted in the fracturing of Lebanon today and being ruled by proxy through Hezbollah. It was under U.S. diplomatic pressure and oversight that Gaza was relinquished to be turned into the Hamas stronghold it is today. And now it is American pressure keeping the “ceasefire” in Lebanon despite the daily drone strikes on IDF troops and border communities from Lebanese territory.

It must be said: the shield offered by the world’s superpower has proven porous. It has neither deterred state actors or non-state actors alike in their quest to destroy the Jewish state. What is the worth of an arrangement which offers no real deterrence to our enemies, and has transformed Israel from the unconstrained, decisive, and victorious state to a reactive, militarily chained and diplomatically constrained one?

 

The Democratic Constraint – Israel’s Security Tied to the U.S. Voter

Any citizen or political observer of the United States knows that the country operates in pendulum swings. The White House turns red to blue and blue to red with almost every election cycle, and at most every two election cycles. Only once has a party won the White House in more than two consecutive terms. As such, U.S. foreign policy is remarkably inconsistent and changes nearly every 4 years.

The partisan divide strongly shapes the nature of Washington’s relations with Jerusalem. Obama ensured that the Palestinian Authority had ample funds and access to American finances to bolster their security forces and signed the infamous nuclear deal with Iran, while Trump recognized the Golan Heights as official Israel territory. The dichotomy between the two political parties and their respective relations with Israel has only intensified as the years have gone by.

Specific to policies regarding Israel, Jerusalem is dealing with two separate and opposing blocs, analogous to the relations of a non-aligned country forced to deal with both Western and Soviet blocs during the Cold War. And as in nearly all matters of American foreign policy, the American electorate has very little understanding of Israel’s geography, threats, constraints, or its history, and is notably increasingly hostile to the state.

As such, Israelis and decision makers in Jerusalem live in a strategic absurdity. A nation, surrounded entirely by hostile actors, must now calibrate its survival to the preferences of foreign voters of another country thousands of miles away. Such an arrangement is not sustainable for a state whose threats are existential.

Cost of Dependence

 

The cost of this dependence has been most noticeable in territorial concessions. The withdrawal from Sinai. The withdrawal from Gaza. The abandonment of the Maronites in Lebanon. And the incessant pressure to withdraw from Judea and Samaria. Each concession has only reduced Israel’s strategic depth and opened the gateway for new enemies to threaten the Israeli civil front.

When the supply chain of munitions is left under control of foreign powers, Israel is forced to concede to the wishes of said power. During the Oct 7^th war, the Biden administration held back the transport of munitions designated for Israel to dictate the manner in which Israel conducts its wars.

Rather than applying pressure on these non-state actors, or state sponsors it has always been far easier to restrain Israel and kept her from decisive action out of American fears of escalation. The American public and its policy makers simply ignore that Israel’s enemies are very much intent on escalation, and as such since the initiation of this American control over Israeli policy, wars increasingly begin on terms chosen by Israel’s enemies. And before any war is truly begun, for the daily lives of Israeli civilians living in the North or South of the country, it means that they must be forced to live under constant threat of rocket fire knowing their government is chained to inaction.

The cost cannot only be measured in land and lives, although that should be enough. Additionally, this dependence has noticeably impeded the growth and development of the Israeli arms industry. Regarding small arms, the Israeli made Galil was replaced by the cheapness and availability of the American M-16. And when the Israelis developed the Tavor, it was eventually replaced largely by the M-4.

 

But the hollowing out of Israeli military development extends far past small arms development. The Israeli development of its own fighter jets was largely scrapped due to American protests. It was the US that blocked the sale of the domestically produced Kfir throughout Latin America. And it was the US that torpedoed the development of the Lavi program, an Israeli fourth generation jet which was feared to rival the American F-16 and F-18. Despite these setbacks, Israel is already beginning to realistically compete with American made systems abroad in other fields. Israel was already in the top 10 weapons exporters in the world, however in the last decade she has risen to surpass even Great Britain and now holds title of 7^th largest arms exporter. Historically Israel has largely exported to India but is increasingly become a central supplier to European powers, being the second largest supplier of weapons to the UK, and a rapidly increasing partner to Germany. In 2024, the Ministry of Defense revealed that over half of all total sales were designated to Europe, driven by the purchase of the Arrow 3 missiles.

In almost all these cases, Israel has become a critical supplier in the fields of air defense, surveillance, and missile technologies. Given Israel’s engineering capacity and battlefield experience, it is reasonable to ask whether — absent American interference — Israel might today be exporting not only air-defense systems but also small arms, armored vehicles, helicopters, and fighter jets.

The Case for Strategic Autonomy – Not Anti-American, Simply Pro-Israeli

This dependence has proven costly to Israel, in coin, in land, and in lives.

The state that was founded on the principle of self-reliance has been made reliant. That is not to say that the alliance is not valuable, but rather it cannot replace the foundational doctrine of the self-reliance of the Jewish people. Nor is autonomy a rejection inherently of U.S. interests. Strategic autonomy is not the abandonment of the U.S.-Israeli alliance, it simply means that Jerusalem cannot be paralyzed, to have the capacity to act even when Washington hesitates.

In a world of shifting powers and diverging interests, Israel must prepare for a future where it can act decisively and independently.

Strategic autonomy requires expanding domestic weapons production and restoring the doctrine of self‑reliance that defined Israel’s early decades.