By Cade Acker, Co-President of the Alexander Hamilton Society at Wheaton College
One of the biggest questions currently facing U.S. foreign policy is Israel. The lone democracy in the Middle East has been a staunch and powerful American ally for more than half a century, but as the international political order shifts, new divisions have arisen.
There are two prevailing lines of thought when it comes to the U.S.-Israeli relationship. The first is ideal; the second is a scarred reality.
Ideally, Israel would cooperate with the United States for mutual technological, military and economic benefits, which have been innumerable. Israel also served as a highly effective partner in the United States’ war on terror following Sept. 11, 2001. Today, Israel contributes significantly to efforts that combat piracy in the Arabian Sea and terrorist cells across Southwest Asia. Nearly 30% of maritime trade runs through these regions, and underpolicing could result in economic relapses worldwide if terrorist cells were free to target unguarded shipping without consequences.
It is difficult to unpack Israel’s history in the Middle East and how it affects the region today. The Galilean corridor and its surrounding subregions are overflowing with longstanding religious, ethnic and territorial conflicts that make the region chronically unstable. Violence in the Middle East is an incessant cycle; the birthplace of civilization has known no era of true, positive peace (which is more than simply the absence of war or direct conflict) even in Biblical times. Today, the persistence of the Arab-Israeli-Persian conflict illustrates the difficulty of achieving a stable status quo for the region. This is the scarred reality.
In its past 77-year history, Israel has arguably been a principality of stability and balance in the Middle East. Yet the United States now faces an undesirable reality: Israel has been accused of numerous war crimes and incursions into several countries, crippling its reputation in the international community.
In international politics, there is a concept called emboldenment — the process in which a state or group, such as Hamas, gains confidence to pursue more assertive, risky or aggressive actions in foreign or domestic affairs. Emboldenment often occurs when a group or country perceives strong backing or protection from a more powerful nation, one stronger than the state or group they are targeting. People may also become emboldened when they believe there is no meaningful opposition from allies, institutions or rival powers.
For example, in the board game Risk, a smaller player may form an “alliance” with a larger player — perhaps the strongest player on the board. The smaller player punches up to take some territory from a player stronger than them, but weaker than their ally. The smaller player would never take this action alone because they know they would be defeated. But because they have the most powerful player to back them up, they have been emboldened to take riskier actions without fear of greater retaliation.
Israel’s reliance on American military aid, diplomatic protection and political backing — under any circumstances — has emboldened it.
Israel’s pursuit of maximum security has led to detrimental losses of influence for the United States and to significant destabilization in the Middle East. An ally in Southwest Asia that provides a platform for stability advances American interests, but one that destabilizes a region works against them.
The world in which the United States thrives today is built on a peaceful, open-market international economy. The people of the United States and most of the world are most prosperous when there is global peace. Why, then, is the United States supporting, allowing and emboldening an ally who incites violence beyond the scope of original and justifiable intentions?
Under a Christian-Hamiltonian perspective, the United States should maintain our nation’s preeminence on an international stage by reasonable, achievable and sustainable means, even against those who directly threaten American interests abroad, and especially at home. These allied nations should also be built on similar moral and institutional foundations. Otherwise, the United States risks moral ambiguity and decay if its supposed coalitions contradict what it stands for as a nation — global peace and prosperity.
True friendship is not permissive silence but an active stance that seeks to guide partners with wisdom toward choices that advance security and justice alike. If Israel is to remain a vital and true ally, the United States must approach the relationship strategically — supporting where interests align and recalibrating where actions bring instability.
There is no dispute that violence is a devastating force in the Middle East, and it forces certain actors and states into hard decisions or scarred realities. But as Christians and Americans, should we willingly entangle ourselves with an agenda that seems to go against what Paul writes in Romans 12:
“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”
Romans 12 reminds us that vengeance belongs to God alone, and that as far as it depends on us, all people — Americans, Christians, Israelites — are to live at peace with others to the best of our abilities. To remain both strong and righteous on the world stage, America must pursue alliances not only with power in mind but also with prudence, ensuring that every calculation advances both national interests and the higher calling of peace, which is the finality of true Christian and human flourishing.
The recent announcement of the prospective peace deal between Israel and Hamas is worth celebrating, and it is exactly what Israel, the U.S. and the rest of the world needed. I find it somewhat appalling that many in the United States either do not have a reaction to this development or refuse to give credit simply because they disagree so strongly with President Trump. Even though it is not set in stone and there is a long way to go, this deal is the right way forward.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any affiliated institutions.
