The US is being asked to supply weapons to two states. It's important to choose which one will actually advance both American and liberal interests.

Conflicting Needs

The contrast in headlines could hardly be starker. Israel, having killed the leaders of both Hezbollah and Hamas, fears retaliation from Iran and so the US deploys a top of the line THAAD system there, complete with US troops operating it. This in addition to the US scrambling aircraft and destroyers to intercept Iranian missiles which have caused damage but so far only on fatality. The world pleads with the Israeli government to hold back, to avoid a wider war with Iran and to try to at least limit the civilian toll - all with the understanding that there is little but diplomacy that can stop the Israeli Defense Force at this point.

By contrast, due north in Eastern Ukraine, the Ukrainian armed forces are in an entirely different position. They face the steady encroachment of Russian forces while under bombardment from glide bombs which devastate the Ukrainian military and civilian infrastructure alike, while the rest of the country suffers near-daily waves of Iranian made or licensed Shahed drones and periodic ballistic and cruise missile strikes.

Both of these states claim to need American ammunition, and it is not entirely a question of money - on a material level, only so much can be produced each month. In air defense, while Ukraine does not have access to THAAD systems or the Israel Iron Dome and thus cannot make use of those interceptors, it is currently flying F-16s donated from the Netherlands and Denmark, which could theoretically use the same missiles (like the AIM-120) that American jets use in defense of Israel. In a ground attack role, as well, Ukraine certainly needs American weapons like the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, which Israel has been accused of using in civilian areas of Gaza. Other in demand goods, like 155mm artillery shells, anti-tank missiles, and Switchblade loitering munitions, have also been delivered to Israel since October 2023.

The historical precedent

There is of course historical precedent for this high demand for American weapons. While the US sat safely ensconced on the secure North American continent at the beginning of World War II, Franklin Roosevelt delivered his famous Arsenal of Democracy speech regarding the re-armament of the country and its supplies to the United Kingdom. Roosevelt assured Americans that

As planes and ships and guns and shells are produced, your government, with its defense experts, can then determine how best to use them to defend this hemisphere. The decision as to how much shall be sent abroad and how much shall remain at home must be made on the basis of our overall military necessities. We must be the great arsenal of democracy.

Roosevelt lays out one criteria for the distribution of arms explicitly - military necessity. But in declaring the US the ‘arsenal of democracy’, he adds another - that the US should seek to aid those countries which share our beliefs and values.

We know of course that this did not strictly apply to democracies alone - American aid would arrive to Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalists and to the Stalin’s Soviet Union when each was battling the Axis. But American weapons were distributed, well before American soldiers were sent to the front, with the particular purpose of constructing a world where democracy and liberalism could at least stand a fighting chance, which meant ending the threat of fascism.

Prioritizing Democratic Allies

Today, similar criteria should be used in evaluating the distribution of American weapons. On the question of military necessity and security, there is really no debate to be had. While Israeli strikes on Hezbollah and Syria may weaken Russia's allies, it has done little to weaken Russia in any concrete since and has avoided striking Russian assets directly. Much worse, Israel’s quest to root out Hamas does nothing for American security, while the antagonism that it is building up in the Arab world undermines our position and threatens the lives of our servicemen and women in the region for essentially no gain. Moreover, it puts our other allies, like the Iraqi Kurds, at risk.

On the question of ideology, I think the answer is similarly clear, though it may require more careful exploration. It is true that Israel has a long democratic tradition and, despite its many elections and frequent shifts in parliament, is the more stable democracy. Ukraine’s history is both shorter and patchier, and while the 2019 election of Volodymyr Zelenskyy was broadly considered free and a step in the direction of solidifying democracy, Ukraine has not been able to effectively run another election since the full scale Russian invasion.

Nonetheless, the direction in which Israel is moving is fundamentally incompatible with a broader agenda of expanding peaceful and liberal relations between states, or within them, while Ukraine’s trajectory is much more promising. Ukraine has worked to improve its human rights record and seeks to join institutions such as the EU that will enforce a much more expansive standard on future governments. By contrast, Israel increasingly rejects the authority of the United Nations and its key officials. The settlement project, a decisive - and at this point, apparently intentional - barrier to peace continues apace. Even allowing flour to enter Gaza, the lowest possible bar for demonstrating good faith and even lip service to humanitarian principles, is a step members of the Israeli cabinet are unwilling to take without coercion. Against this backdrop, it is impossible to claim that American munitions in the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces are contributing to a more peaceful or safer world, much less a more liberal one.

One can even make a solid case that aid to Israel actually weakens democracy and liberalism in the United States. In continuing to supply Israel with weapons even after finding evidence that Israeli military units are committing gross human rights violations the US violates its own laws, particularly the Leahy Act. Making exceptions to the rule of law in foreign policy is by no means novel, but it erodes the foundation of democratic lawmaking in general and public trust in the impact of elected officials on foreign policy.

What world are our weapons bringing about?

Finally, there is the question of goals. As Roosevelt deepened America’s involvement with the war in the summer of 1941, he and Churchill issued a joint statement on their understandings in the war. This statement included several points, but the first two was: “their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other”. The seventh was more specific to American concerns: “such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance”. It is unpopular to make such sweeping declarations of principle in today’s era, but both these seem like laudable goals for any American foreign policy. Israel at this point cannot be said to be committed to either - the continued settlement program in the West Bank as well as periodic rumblings about displacing Gazan Palestinians indicate a desire for aggrandizement, and no commitment has thus far been made or even seriously suggested that Israel might lift the naval blockade currently strangling the narrow coastal enclave.

Until the Israeli government is able to commit to war conduct and a post-war order conducive to advancing the broadest goals of liberalism - including self-determination for Palestinians - no shell launched into Gaza can possible be as valuable as the same sent to defend Ukraine. Ideally, congress would set aside the requisite budget to assist Ukraine in perpetuity. But even if the money is not committed, it is better to hold munitions in reserve for donation or sale to Ukraine when the time is right than to quite literally explode them in a conflict that neither advances US interests nor lives up to our highest ideals.