When American policymakers debate Middle East strategy from Washington conference rooms, they’re 6,000 miles from the rocket sirens of Sderot, the security checkpoints of Judea and Samaria, and the northern border towns within Hezbollah’s crosshairs. This distance isn’t just geographic. It’s experiential. It shapes policy in ways that sometimes run counter to American strategic interests.
The biblical homeland
The Jewish people’s connection to the Land of Israel isn’t a modern political claim. It’s the foundation of Jewish identity itself. From Jerusalem to Hebron, from Shiloh to Beit El, these aren’t settlements in a foreign land. They are the heartland of ancient Israel, where Jewish communities maintained a continuous presence even through centuries of exile and persecution.
No other people can document a 3,000-year connection through archaeological evidence, religious texts, linguistic continuity, and unbroken communal memory. When American policy treats Judea and Samaria as “occupied territory” rather than the historic Jewish homeland with legitimate legal claims under international law, we undermine our own credibility. How can the United States lecture other nations about respecting indigenous rights while dismissing the most thoroughly documented ancient claim in human history?
The Israeli difference
Religious freedom for all faiths exists in Jerusalem and throughout Israel only under Israeli control. Christians can worship freely at their holy sites. Muslims have access to their mosques. Jews can pray at the Western Wall. This wasn’t true under Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967, when synagogues were destroyed and Jews were banned from their holiest sites. It isn’t true in territories controlled today by the Palestinian Authority or Hamas.
When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, ancient synagogues were destroyed within hours. In Bethlehem, once 80% Christian under Israeli control, Christians now make up less than 20% under Palestinian Authority governance.
Religious diversity and freedom exist where Israel maintains security and disappear where it doesn’t. American interests include protecting religious freedom and minority rights. Only Israeli control guarantees access to holy sites for all faiths.
Beyond the briefing room
American policymakers who are serious about crafting realistic policies must visit Israel and experience reality on the ground: Not scripted diplomatic tours – real visits. Stand on the hilltops of Judea and look down at Ben-Gurion Airport. Visit Sderot and see reinforced playgrounds built to protect children from Gaza rockets. Walk through Jerusalem’s Old City and witness the only place in the Middle East where a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim can each access their holy sites freely. Drive the narrow width of Israel at its center and grasp what nine miles means when enemies are armed with rockets.
These experiences cannot be replicated in Washington briefings. The senators and representatives who truly understand Israel on the ground craft better policies. They ask different questions. They push back on simplistic solutions. They recognize that policies promoting genuine peace must account for actual geography, real threats, and lived experience.
Another Palestinian state?
American policymakers who advocate for an independent Palestinian state must confront uncomfortable truths. Firstly, such a state would reward decades of terrorism. Since Oslo, Palestinians have responded to Israeli peace offers with suicide bombings and rocket attacks. The Palestinian Authority pays salaries to terrorists. Hamas has a charter calling for Israel’s destruction.
Secondly, an independent Palestinian state poses an existential security threat. The West Bank sits on high ground overlooking Israel’s coastal plain, where 70% of Israelis live. Israel’s narrowest point would be nine miles wide. An independent Palestinian state means no Israeli security control, no ability to prevent arms smuggling or Iranian entrenchment. October 7 demonstrated exactly what happens when Israel cedes security control: an Iranian proxy state emerges, dedicated to Israel’s destruction.
Israel took enormous risks for peace. The result was not a peaceful Palestinian state but a terrorist stronghold that has launched thousands of attacks on Israeli civilians. Why would any rational government repeat this catastrophic experiment in the strategic heartland?
Protecting US interests
Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981 and Syria’s in 2007, preventing nuclear proliferation without costing a single American life. Israeli intelligence sharing has thwarted terror attacks against Americans. Israeli military innovations are shared with the US military and save American lives.
Consider the alternative. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The result was 20,000 rockets and an Iranian proxy state on the Mediterranean. If American pressure creates similar outcomes in Judea and Samaria, Israel faces hostile territory nine miles from Tel Aviv. That means a destabilized Israel, regional chaos, and American military intervention. We saw this in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Why voluntarily create those conditions in the biblical heartland?
The Iran test case
Nothing illustrates the Washington-Jerusalem policy gap more clearly than Iran. For years, American officials argued that diplomacy could moderate Iranian behavior. Israel warned otherwise. Today, Iran operates proxy armies across the region and builds nuclear facilities. Israeli operations against Iranian nuclear scientists and facilities have done more to slow Iran’s program than any diplomatic initiative.
Iranian dominance threatens American interests directly. Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz threatens global energy supplies. Iranian proxies attack American forces in Iraq and Syria. Every Israeli action that weakens Iran’s regional position serves American strategic goals without deploying American forces.
Israeli decision-making
The greatest tension in the US-Israel relationship emerges when American administrations believe they understand Israel’s security needs better than Israelis themselves. These policies don’t produce peace. They produce emboldened adversaries who calculate they can win through violence what they couldn’t achieve through negotiation.
American interests are served when Israel acts from strength. The Abraham Accords proved this. Arab states normalized relations with Israel not because Israel made concessions, but because Israel demonstrated technological prowess and military capability that made partnership valuable.
What America gains
When the United States backs Israel’s security decisions, regional deterrence holds. Adversaries understand that attacking Israel means confronting Israeli military power with full American backing. Arab states see a reliable America. Israeli innovation continues to flow to the American defense and technology sectors. The Iron Dome, Israeli cybersecurity firms, medical devices, and agricultural technology all benefit American interests.
Israeli building in Judea and Samaria doesn’t obstruct American interests. Ma’aleh Adumim, Ariel, Gush Etzion – these are population centers in areas with profound Jewish historical significance, areas that will remain part of Israel in any realistic peace agreement.
The path forward
American policy should focus on outcomes that serve American interests: a stable Middle East with weakened Iranian influence, continued Israeli-Arab normalization, protected religious freedom, and a strong Israel capable of defending itself without requiring American military intervention.
This means backing Israel’s military edge without conditions. It means recognizing that peace cannot be imposed through pressure on the party that has repeatedly offered compromise. It means understanding that Israeli strength enables stability, while Israeli weakness invites aggression. And it means acknowledging that Jewish historic rights to the biblical homeland are the foundation of Israel’s existence.
Israel doesn’t need American troops. It needs American support for its defensive actions and independence to make decisions based on immediate security realities. Every dollar spent supporting Israeli military capability prevents far more expensive American deployments. Every Israeli operation against Iranian proxies weakens America’s primary Middle Eastern adversary. Every breakthrough in Israeli-Arab relations advances American goals of regional stability.
Strong support for Israel isn’t about values alone. It’s about recognizing that Israel’s security serves America’s interests in concrete, measurable ways. It’s about standing with the only nation in the Middle East that protects religious freedom and maintains stability in the lands where Western civilization’s religious heritage was born.
The writer is the co-founder of the Yes Israel Project, bringing US senators, congressional candidates, and policy advisers on fact-finding missions to Israel. Together with co-founder Sarah Paley, she helps US leaders craft Mideast policy based on direct observation rather than distant abstraction.