Where Do Priorities Lie?
By Aslam Abdullah
Sept/Oct 26
Few relationships in American foreign policy have been as enduring or as expensive as that between the United States and Israel. Since recognizing Israel in 1948, the U.S. has become its largest and most consistent benefactor. According to the Congressional Research Service, Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II, receiving approximately $174 billion in bilateral assistance and military funding in 1945 dollars, or nearly $298 billion in 2024 dollars.
The debate over this assistance is not simply about foreign policy. It is also about priorities. Every dollar allocated abroad is a dollar unavailable for domestic needs. The issue is not whether aid to Israel has strategic value; rather, it is whether Americans should periodically evaluate such commitments considering pressing challenges at home — dangerous, aging infrastructure, deeply unequal educational opportunities, spiraling health-care costs, and numerous public-safety concerns. Public budgets are moral documents. They reveal not only what a nation can afford but also what it chooses to value.
The Scale of American Assistance to Israel
The current framework for U.S. aid to Israel is a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding covering fiscal years 2019-28. Under this agreement, the U.S. committed $38 billion, consisting of $33 billion in foreign military financing and $5 billion for missile defense. This translates into approximately $3.8 billion annually.
Following the events of Oct. 7, 2023, and the subsequent Israeli genocide in Gaza, Congress approved additional emergency funding for Israel. The Congressional Research Service reported that the April 2024 national security supplemental included $3.5 billion in military funding and $5.2 billion for missile defense systems.
Total 2024 fiscal year obligations related to Israel therefore reached approximately $12.5 billion. These funds do not appear as direct cash payments to Israeli citizens. They support military procurement, advanced weapons systems, aircraft, missile defense, and related security infrastructure. Nevertheless, the figures help illustrate the scale of American commitment.
With Israel’s population at roughly 10 million people, the annual baseline aid amounts to about $376 per Israeli resident. Spread across the American population, the same annual commitment amounts to about $11 per U.S. resident. Individually, such figures appear modest. Collectively, they represent resources substantial enough to influence major domestic policy priorities.
Clean Water and Public Health
One of the clearest examples of this domestic need is the drinking water infrastructure. In 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized regulations requiring replacement of lead service lines within 10 years. The agency estimated that as many as 9 million homes may still be connected to legacy lead pipes. The EPA estimates place the annual incremental cost of compliance between $1.47 billion and $1.95 billion, while projected benefits range from $13.5 billion to $25.1 billion annually.
By this measure, the baseline annual aid to Israel of $3.8 billion equals roughly two years of the annual cost required to address one of America’s most pressing public health hazards. The $12.5 billion sent to Israel in 2024 equals more than six years of those annual costs.
This comparison does not imply that foreign aid funds could simply be transferred to infrastructure programs. Budgetary and political realities are more complicated. However, the comparison highlights the magnitude of the resources involved. Lead contamination is not merely an infrastructure problem. It affects childhood development, educational outcomes, and long-term health.
Access to clean water remains one of the most basic responsibilities of contemporary government. The question is whether national priorities adequately reflect that responsibility.
Investing in the Future
Education is another area where the opportunity costs of U.S. aid to Israel become visible. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the federal government spent approximately $16,280 per public elementary and secondary school student during the 2020–21 school year. At that rate , the annual $3.8 billion aid commitment to Israel could finance roughly 233,000 academic years of public education. Considering the $12.5 billion sent to Israel in 2024, the equivalent rate spent on education for American students rises to approximately 768,000 academic years.
Educational challenges cannot be solved simply by reallocating foreign assistance; more money spent on education for American students would best address these challenges. Educational outcomes depend on governance, curricula , teacher training , parental involvement, and local administration. Yet funding clearly remains a necessary component of educational success.
And education yields long-term returns that extend far beyond the classroom. Better schools contribute to economic productivity, social mobility, civic engagement, and reduced costs on social ills. Investments in education also strengthen a nation from within. The comparison therefore raises a broader question: how should policymakers balance external security commitments with investments in America’s human capital?
Public Safety and Community Stability
Public safety represents another critical national concern. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that police officers and detectives earned a median annual salary of approximately $77,000 in 2024. Including benefits, equipment, training, supervision, and operational costs, estimates of total annual support per officer often range between $100,000 and $150,000.
Using those figures, the annual $3.8 billion aid commitment could support roughly 25,000 to 38,000 officer-years across the country. The $12.5 billion sent to Israel could support significantly more. However, modern public safety is about more than personnel numbers. Effective crime reduction also requires community policing, youth development programs, violence-interruption initiatives, mental-health services, substance-abuse treatment, and successful reentry programs for former offenders.
Domestic security requires investment just as international security does. Surely safe neighborhoods, trusted public institutions, and effective and widely available local services contribute to national stability just as much as international military alliances.
Health Care and Well-Being
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached nearly $27,000 in 2025. Measured against this benchmark, the annual $3.8 billion aid commitment equals roughly 141,000 family-policy years of health coverage. The 2024 fiscal year level of support for Israel at $12.5 billion equals approximately 463,000 family-policy years.
Health care determines whether children receive preventive care, whether chronic illnesses are managed effectively, whether expectant mothers receive adequate treatment, and whether families face financial hardship because of medical emergencies.
Community health centers provide another illustration. Federally-funded centers served more than 32 million people in 2024, delivering primary care, dental services, behavioral health support, and preventive medicine to populations that might otherwise lack access to these vital services.
Therefore, a healthy population is not merely a social objective; it is a national-security asset. Economic productivity, military readiness, educational achievement, and overall quality of life all depend on a country’s public health.
The Arithmetic of Citizenship
Large federal expenditures appear small when distributed across the entire population. $11 per resident annually seems insignificant. Even $37 per resident may not appear substantial. But public finance operates through accumulation.
Individual appropriations may seem modest, but together they shape the quality of schools, roads, water systems, hospitals, and public institutions available to a country’s residents. The question is not whether foreign aid is inherently wasteful. Many policymakers argue that support for Israel advances strategic interests, strengthens regional alliances, enhances intelligence cooperation, and contributes to broader American objectives in the Middle East. The more fundamental question is whether every major expenditure should be evaluated against competing domestic priorities.
A democratic society has an obligation to ask not only what it gains abroad but also what opportunities it forgoes at home.
Two Visions of Security
At its heart, the debate over U.S. aid to Israel reflects two different understandings of security. One vision looks outward. It emphasizes alliances, military partnerships, deterrence, regional influence, intelligence cooperation, and geopolitical stability. Supporters of aid argue that assistance to Israel strengthens a key ally and advances broader American strategic interests.
The second vision looks inward. It defines security in terms of healthy communities, safe drinking water, quality schools, affordable health care, and public safety. Under this framework, national strength begins with the well-being of citizens.
These visions are not necessarily incompatible. A great power can maintain international commitments while investing in domestic renewal. The challenge lies in achieving the proper balance. The issue should not be reduced to slogans or partisan talking points. Mature democracies periodically reassess priorities, measure outcomes, and ask whether existing allocations reflect contemporary needs.
The annual aid framework of approximately $3.8 billion — and the significantly larger emergency appropriations approved in recent years — reflect a longstanding strategic partnership. Yet these figures also invite reflection. Viewed against domestic benchmarks, they are large enough to influence public health initiatives, educational opportunities, health care access, and community safety. The debate, therefore, is not simply about Israel. Nor is it about whether America should abandon allies or retreat from international responsibilities. The deeper question concerns balance.
Can the U.S. continue supporting allies abroad while simultaneously investing more aggressively in the needs of its own citizens? Can it maintain global influence while ensuring clean water, quality education, accessible health care, and safe communities at home? A strong republic must do both. A country’s greatness is measured not only by the alliances it sustains overseas but also by the opportunities, security, and dignity it provides within its own borders.
The conversation about aid to Israel should therefore be viewed not merely as a foreign-policy debate, but as a broader discussion about national priorities, democratic accountability, and the true meaning of security in the twenty-first century.
Aslam Abdullah, PhD, is a resident Islamic Scholar at Islamicity and an author and speaker.