By: Fern Sidman

The Trump administration is pressing ahead with a massive new weapons package for Israel worth nearly $6 billion, even as international condemnation of Israel’s war in Gaza and its unprecedented strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar continues to reverberate across the Middle East and Europe.

According to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the proposed deal would represent one of the largest single arms transfers to Israel in recent years, encompassing both high-tech air power and ground combat vehicles. The sales, if approved by Congress, would reinforce Israel’s long-term military edge in the region, underscoring the administration’s commitment to the U.S.-Israel security alliance despite mounting humanitarian and diplomatic costs.

The administration’s request, delivered initially to congressional leaders about a month ago, seeks authorization for two major sales:

$3.8 billion for 30 AH-64 Apache helicopters, a purchase that would nearly double Israel’s existing fleet of the advanced attack aircraft.

$1.9 billion for 3,250 infantry assault vehicles, designed to bolster the Israeli army’s ground forces for urban and cross-border operations.

Together, the two deals would total approximately $5.7 billion. As The Wall Street Journal emphasized in its report on Friday, the financing would come through U.S.-provided foreign military aid — taxpayer funds that make up the backbone of Israel’s procurement of American weaponry.

Delivery of the weapons would likely take two to three years, one person familiar with the request told the paper, meaning the arms are intended to shape Israel’s military posture well beyond the current conflict in Gaza.

At present, the State Department is seeking approval from the top Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Traditionally, these four lawmakers must sign off before an administration sends broader notification to Congress and the public.

The Wall Street Journal reported that while the request predates Israel’s Sept. 9 missile strike on Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, the administration has not withdrawn or altered the proposal despite the diplomatic firestorm that followed. That continuity reflects the Trump administration’s deep strategic commitment to arming Israel, regardless of the immediate political or humanitarian controversies surrounding its actions.

Israel’s strike on Hamas operatives in the Qatari capital — unprecedented in both its boldness and diplomatic risk — has complicated Washington’s position. Qatar is not only a Gulf ally but also host to the largest American military presence in the Middle East. The attack drew condemnation from regional partners and angered President Trump himself, according to the information provided in The Wall Street Journal report.

Seeking to contain the damage, Trump hosted Qatar’s prime minister for dinner and personally assured him that no further strikes on Qatari soil would occur. Soon afterward, Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to Doha following a stop in Israel, aiming to repair strained ties.

In a joint press conference, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defended Israel’s prerogative to target Hamas leaders “wherever they may be,” a position Rubio notably did not challenge. The Wall Street Journal report observed that this moment captured the paradox of U.S. policy: criticism of Israel’s actions at the diplomatic level coexisting with unwavering material and strategic support.

The weapons request comes as Israel expands its ground offensive in Gaza City, intensifying a war that aid groups and European governments warn has already reached catastrophic levels. According to Hamas officials, more than 65,000 people have been killed since the war began after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in southern Israel, though those figures do not distinguish between combatants and civilians.

The Wall Street Journal report highlighted that international food security experts reported famine has taken hold in parts of Gaza, with Israeli airstrikes and urban combat reducing swaths of the enclave to ruins. This week, a United Nations committee accused Israel of committing genocide — a charge Israel flatly denies, insisting that Hamas bears responsibility for the suffering by embedding within civilian areas and refusing to release hostages.

Despite the humanitarian criticism, the Trump administration has signaled that it views military support to Israel as integral to broader U.S. interests in the Middle East.

For Israel, the proposed arms sales would replenish and expand capabilities taxed by months of continuous operations. Apache helicopters, in particular, play a central role in counterterrorism missions, close air support for ground forces, and precision strikes against hardened targets. Infantry assault vehicles are equally vital for maneuvering in Gaza’s dense urban terrain and deterring Hezbollah threats on the northern border.

Defense analysts told The Wall Street Journal that the package reflects both Israel’s immediate needs and its long-term planning horizon. Even with delivery years away, securing congressional approval now ensures that Israel’s pipeline of advanced weaponry remains uninterrupted.

Seth Binder, advocacy director at the Middle East Democracy Center, told the paper: “This says all systems go.” Binder noted that the scale and timing of the proposed sales underscore Washington’s determination to bolster Israel’s qualitative military edge at a moment of regional volatility.

Trump’s weapons package continues a bipartisan tradition of deep U.S. support for Israel’s defense. The Biden administration also surged weapons to Israel after Hamas’s October 7 massacre, though it occasionally sought to restrain Israeli operations through conditional holds on arms.

For example, in 2024, Biden temporarily withheld shipments of 2,000-pound and 500-pound bombs during a dispute over Israel’s planned offensive in Rafah. The 500-pound bombs were later released, but the 2,000-pound bombs remained on hold until Trump assumed office. According to the information in The Wall Street Journal report, Trump quickly lifted the restrictions, even using an emergency rule in February to override Congress and expedite delivery of additional heavy bombs.

That contrast — Biden’s occasional caution versus Trump’s aggressive acceleration — reflects differing philosophies on how U.S. leverage should be applied. Biden faced mounting criticism from Democrats who wanted him to use arms shipments as a bargaining tool for a cease-fire and hostage release. Trump, by contrast, has consistently rejected conditioning military aid, casting such efforts as undermining a key ally in wartime.

The timing of the weapons request reveals the administration’s balancing act. While Trump privately expressed frustration over the Qatar strike, he moved quickly to reassure Doha of America’s commitment to its sovereignty. Hosting the Qatari prime minister and dispatching Secretary Rubio illustrated Washington’s desire to keep relations stable with a partner they believe is critical to U.S. military operations.

At the same time, The Wall Street Journal report observed that neither Trump nor Rubio openly challenged Netanyahu’s claim of Israel’s right to target Hamas leaders abroad. That silence signaled a tacit acceptance of Israel’s security rationale, even as Washington worked to smooth diplomatic feathers ruffled by the raid.

The administration’s approach, analysts note, reflects a broader calculus: while Gulf partners remain indispensable to U.S. basing and regional diplomacy, Israel remains central to America’s strategic architecture in the Middle East.

The fallout has not been confined to Qatar. European governments, already critical of Israel’s expanded Gaza campaign, reacted with alarm to the strike in Doha. Officials in Brussels, Berlin, and Paris warned that Israel’s actions risk destabilizing diplomatic balances and undermine Western credibility in the region.

Aid groups have amplified these critiques, accusing Israel of exacerbating civilian suffering and calling for an immediate cease-fire. The UN’s genocide accusation, though strongly rejected by Israel, has only deepened international scrutiny.

Nevertheless, as The Wall Street Journal report underscored, the administration remains unmoved in its determination to provide Israel with the tools it seeks, even at the risk of alienating some allies.

Congress now faces a pivotal decision. While bipartisan support for Israel’s security has historically been robust, the sheer scale of civilian casualties in Gaza and the diplomatic controversies surrounding Israeli operations may complicate the path forward.

Some lawmakers are expected to push for conditions or reporting requirements, especially given that the proposed package is funded entirely by U.S. military aid. Yet others, particularly Republicans, are likely to frame the arms sales as a test of America’s loyalty to its closest Middle Eastern ally.

The Wall Street Journal report noted that the leaders of the relevant committees often serve as gatekeepers, and their approval would send a strong signal that Congress remains aligned with the administration’s pro-Israel stance.

The Trump administration’s push for nearly $6 billion in new weapons sales to Israel represents more than a routine arms transfer. It is a defining moment in the trajectory of U.S.-Israel relations — one that crystallizes the administration’s willingness to prioritize military solidarity over mounting humanitarian criticism and diplomatic turbulence.

As The Wall Street Journal has reported, the proposal would nearly double Israel’s Apache helicopter fleet and significantly expand its armored ground capacity. While delivery is years away, the signal is immediate: Washington intends to anchor Israel’s military strength for the long haul.

The timing could hardly be more contentious. For Trump and his advisers, the calculus appears clear — Israel must have what it needs to fight Hamas today and deter adversaries tomorrow, regardless of political headwinds.

For Congress, the decision will test the durability of America’s bipartisan commitment to Israel in the face of extraordinary strain. For Israel, the package offers reassurance that even as it weathers international opprobrium, its most important ally remains steadfast. And for the region, the message is unmistakable: U.S. support for Israel, as shaped by the Trump administration, is not contingent on circumstance, but rooted in enduring strategic conviction.