...
By Jason D. Greenblatt
Former White House Middle East Envoy
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
After my recent Newsweek op-ed arguing that instead of relying on the U.S., Europe must take primary responsibility for its own defense rather than prioritizing generous social benefits and other fiscally irresponsible choices, I received a recurring question: Would President Donald Trump apply the same logic to Israel?
My answer is no. I do not believe President Trump sees the two cases as remotely comparable.
I do not speak for President Trump. But based on his long-standing record on Israel, how he has spoken about and supported Israel for decades and the strategic realities involved, it is clear that he views supporting Israel very differently from underwriting Europe’s defense.
Read More on Opinion
...
First, President Trump’s record on Israel speaks for itself. More than any American president, he backed Israel not only rhetorically but materially and diplomatically. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, acknowledged Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, brokered the Abraham Accords, supported Israel during massive missile attacks from Iran, took decisive steps to set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions and secured the return of hostages held by Hamas that many believed would be impossible. These examples only begin to capture the depth of his support. These are not the actions of a president indulging a free rider. They reflect a leader who views Israel as a core strategic ally whose security is deeply intertwined with American interests.
Second, Israel is not part of NATO, and that distinction matters enormously. Trump’s critique of Europe has often centered on NATO, an alliance built on explicit, reciprocal defense commitments. Article 5 is not a handout. It presumes that each member will invest seriously in its own defense. Trump’s frustration with Europe and NATO stems from the reality that obligations have flowed overwhelmingly in one direction, from the United States to Europe. Israel, by contrast, has no treaty obligation requiring American forces to fight on its behalf. U.S. support for Israel is a strategic choice, not a lopsided contractual arrangement.
Israel’s own doctrine reinforces that point. One of Israel’s defining principles is that it does not ask American troops to fight its wars. Israelis defend Israel. Universal conscription, massive reserve mobilization and constant readiness are facts of life. That does not mean Israel can stand alone in all circumstances, as demonstrated by recent Iranian attacks when U.S. assistance under President Trump was essential, along with years of U.S. military aid, much of which circulates back into the American economy through defense production. But it does mean Israel does not outsource its survival.
Third, Trump’s objections to European defense policies long predate his presidency. Well before his first term, he criticized European governments for outsourcing their security to Washington while spending lavishly at home. His view has been consistent: wealthy European states chose political comfort over military readiness while assuming America would always fill the gap. Israel simply does not fit that pattern.
Fourth, Israel demonstrably carries its own defense burden. Israel’s defense spending, measured as a share of GDP, is among the highest in the world and far exceeds the European average. Israeli society absorbs the economic and human costs of permanent vigilance. Trump respects effort, sacrifice and seriousness. Europe’s chronic underinvestment stands in sharp contrast.
The scale gap between Europe and Israel further underscores the difference. Europe is a continent of hundreds of millions of people with vast industrial capacity and deep capital markets. With U.S. backing, Europe has the ability to defend itself if it chooses to do so. Israel, though highly successful, is a tiny country in geography and population, surrounded by hostile actors and facing constant conventional and asymmetric threats. No plausible level of self-help can fully offset those risks.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky once warned President Trump that distance should not make the United States comfortable about Europe’s security challenges. Trump rejected that logic, and rightly so. Europe’s challenges, while serious, are buffered by distance and do not carry the same immediacy for the United States as other current challenges, including instability in the Middle East. Instability in the Middle East has repeatedly produced immediate and cascading consequences for American interests.
Instability around Israel does not stay local. It affects energy markets, counterterrorism efforts, nuclear proliferation, regional power balances and American credibility worldwide. A weakened Israel would invite wider conflict and embolden adversaries far beyond the region. Supporting Israel is not about subsidizing complacency. It is about preventing dangerous chain reactions in one of the world’s most volatile regions.
Trump sees Europe’s predicament as largely self-inflicted. Europe enjoyed a peace dividend for decades, betting that American protection was eternal even as it shirked its responsibilities. When Trump says the United States should no longer prop up the world like Atlas, he is speaking to allies who had every opportunity to stand on their own and chose not to.
Israel never had that luxury.
The difference is not favoritism, though Trump clearly has deep warmth toward the Jewish state and its people. It is responsibility. Allies who take responsibility for their own security earn American support. Those who do not should not expect blank checks.
That is why helping Israel is not, and never has been, the same as underwriting Europe’s defense.
Jason D. Greenblatt was the White House Middle East envoy in the first Trump administration. He is the author of In the Path of Abraham: How Donald Trump Made Peace in the Middle East and founder of Abraham Venture LLC.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines