• For many in Washington, questioning military aid to Israel is treated as political heresy. But moral clarity demands it. The choice is not between supporting Israel and abandoning it, it is between perpetuating a failed status quo or demanding a policy that values peace as much as security.

- The author is a geostrategic analyst and freelance columnist on international affairs.

ISTANBUL 

In the sunlit courtyard of the Israeli prime minister's office, US Vice President JD Vance clasped hands with Premier Benjamin Netanyahu in a carefully staged display of solidarity. The two men stood before the cameras, declaring that "Israel is not a client state," an unsubtle attempt to distance Washington from criticism that its military aid has enabled Israel's actions in Gaza. Vance, echoing the administration’s talking points, insisted that he wasn't there to "monitor them like a toddler," describing his mission as one of partnership, not oversight. Yet his visible discomfort during the visit told a different story. Vance expressed shock at the Knesset’s (parliament) recent vote to advance West Bank annexation, calling it a "political stunt" that offended him if true. This reaction reveals a rare moment of candor: even a staunch ally like Vance recognizes that Israel’s provocative actions risk destabilizing the region further and complicating US diplomacy. But for many watching, this visit was less about partnership and more about performance.

The ceasefire in Gaza, brokered months ago under heavy international pressure, is fraying. Skirmishes near Rafah, sporadic rocket fire from militant holdouts, and continued Israeli raids have all tested its durability. Vance’s trip, another stop in the endless procession of American officials flying into Tel Aviv to "show support," was meant to reinforce the truce. Instead, it highlighted the contradictions at the heart of US policy. Netanyahu made it clear that he opposed any Turkish peacekeeping presence in Gaza, which is a proposal floated to stabilize the region. His defiance, coupled with the Knesset’s annexation vote, underscored how little influence Washington actually wields over its closest ally in the Middle East, even after decades of political and military backing.

Unity on camera, disunity in policy

Publicly, both leaders spoke of unity and shared values. Vance called the US-Israeli bond "unshakable." Yet the facts tell a harder story. Since the October 2023 attacks that reignited the genocidal war in Gaza, the United States has approved more than $20 billion in weapons sales to Israel. These include precision-guided munitions and F-35 jets used in strikes that have flattened apartment blocks and displaced hundreds of thousands. The rhetoric of partnership masks a grim reality: US arms are helping sustain a cycle of violence that diplomacy alone can no longer contain.

The human toll is staggering. More than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to local estimates, many of them women and children. Entire neighborhoods lie in ruins. Hospitals operate without reliable power or clean water. I have spoken with Palestinian Americans whose families remain trapped in Gaza, living under siege conditions. One young woman told me her sister was killed in an airstrike while fetching water. "We were promised peace," she said quietly, "but America keeps sending more weapons."

On the ground, Israeli forces continue to expand settlements in the West Bank and carry out raids that have displaced thousands. The Knesset’s vote to pursue annexation, which Vance criticized, signals Israel’s intent to entrench its control over contested territories, further inflaming tensions and undermining any hope for a two-state solution. What Vance calls security looks, to many, like occupation repackaged as defense.

For those who have watched US policy in the region over the decades, the pattern is all too familiar. America supplies weapons, issues statements of “deep concern,” and then looks away as violence escalates. The result is a policy that satisfies no one and solves nothing. It not only alienates allies in the Global South but also severely damages America’s image as a global leader committed to human rights and international law. Israel’s actions, enabled by US support, cast Washington as complicit in violations that clash with its stated values, eroding trust among nations and fueling anti-American sentiment across the Middle East and beyond. It alienates allies in the Global South, weakens Washington’s credibility as a mediator, and deepens resentment across the Arab world.

If Vance’s trip was meant to project strength, it instead exposed the limits of American influence. His reaction to the Knesset vote hints at a growing unease within even conservative circles about Israel’s unilateral moves, which risk dragging the US into broader regional conflicts. Real partnership requires accountability. Instead of unconditional support, the US should tie its aid to verifiable commitments: adherence to ceasefire terms, cooperation with humanitarian agencies, and a genuine path toward Palestinian self-determination. Conditioning aid is not abandonment; it is responsibility. The United States has leverage – it simply refuses to use it.

Eroded credibility in Washington

The alternative is more of the same: more aid packages, more funerals, more disillusionment. America’s current approach treats the Middle East as a perpetual emergency rather than a region that demands long-term stability. It props up militaries but neglects the civilians left in their wake. It praises democracy while tolerating occupation. This contradiction cannot last forever.

Yet even as these options exist, American politics seems incapable of embracing them. For many in Washington, questioning military aid to Israel is treated as political heresy. But moral clarity demands it. The choice is not between supporting Israel and abandoning it, it is between perpetuating a failed status quo or demanding a policy that values peace as much as security.

Gaza’s children, growing up amid rubble and trauma, will remember who stood for them – and who turned away. As another winter approaches, with reconstruction stalled and tensions rising, the region teeters on the edge of another spiral. Vance’s handshake in Jerusalem may have been meant to symbolize unity, but it also symbolized denial: a refusal to confront how US power, misapplied, sustains the very instability it claims to oppose.

America faces a crossroads. It can continue writing blank checks for war, or it can invest in peace with the same urgency it once reserved for weapons. The answer will define not only its role in the Middle East but its moral standing in the world.

It is time to stop confusing loyalty with wisdom. Partnership without accountability is not friendship – it's complicity. If Washington truly wants to see peace in Gaza, it must start by putting its money, and its conscience, where its mouth is.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy