Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for military aid, humanitarian assistance, settlements, international law, and the path toward lasting peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares Israel-Gaza approaches — but there's much more to explore.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most consequential and emotionally charged issues in American foreign policy. The United States provides $3.8 billion per year in military aid to Israel — more than to any other country. American diplomatic support has been critical to Israel's security and regional position. At the same time, US policy has profound implications for millions of Palestinians living under occupation, blockade, and displacement. How America navigates this relationship affects not only the region but America's credibility, alliances, and moral standing worldwide.
This is a page about policy, not about assigning blame or taking sides in a conflict with deep historical roots and legitimate grievances on both sides. Israeli civilians have the right to live in security. Palestinian civilians have the right to live in dignity. Both are true. The question for American policy is: which approach best serves both — and America's own interests?
Democrats are internally divided between unconditional and conditional support. Republicans overwhelmingly favor unconditional military and diplomatic support for Israel. The Common Good Party proposes a principled framework: maintain the US-Israel alliance while conditioning military aid on compliance with US and international law, actively pursue a two-state solution, ensure unconditional humanitarian aid to civilians, and position the US as a genuine mediator rather than an advocate for one side.
How the three approaches stack up on Israel-Gaza policy.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Military aid | Maintain $3.8B, some push for conditions | Unconditional, increase if needed | Maintain alliance, condition on US law compliance |
| Settlement policy | Oppose expansion (inconsistent enforcement) | Support Israeli sovereignty decisions | Oppose expansion, incentivize freeze |
| Two-state solution | Support in principle | Some support, others favor alternatives | Active pursuit with concrete framework |
| Humanitarian aid | Support, push for access | Conditional on security considerations | Unconditional — civilian aid is not a weapon |
| International law | Generally support, selective application | Oppose ICC/ICJ jurisdiction over Israel | Consistent application — all parties accountable |
| UN approach | Engage multilaterally, some vetoes | Shield Israel from UN criticism | Engage constructively, oppose double standards in all directions |
| Aid conditions | Divided — growing support for conditions | Oppose all conditions | Same standards as all US aid recipients |
| Reconstruction | Support international framework | Contingent on demilitarization | International reconstruction fund, civilian-led governance |
| Refugee rights | Support UNRWA funding, acknowledge issue | Defund UNRWA, oppose right of return | Address within two-state framework, support UNRWA reform |
| Diplomatic approach | Multilateral, coalition-based | Bilateral, Israel-centric | Genuine mediation — not advocate for one side |
Sources: Congressional Research Service, State Department, UNRWA, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats are deeply divided on Israel-Gaza policy. The party establishment has traditionally supported the US-Israel alliance with minimal conditions, maintaining military aid while expressing concern about settlements and civilian casualties. A growing progressive wing has pushed for conditioning military aid on human rights compliance, restricting offensive weapons transfers, and more active pursuit of a two-state solution. The party generally supports UNRWA funding, humanitarian aid access, and multilateral diplomacy.
Democrats correctly recognize that Israeli security and Palestinian rights are not mutually exclusive. The party's support for humanitarian aid and its opposition to settlement expansion (in principle) reflect both legal requirements and moral imperatives. The growing push for aid conditionality represents a shift toward consistent application of US law — the same standards applied to every other aid recipient.
The gap between Democratic rhetoric and action is enormous. The party has expressed concern about civilian casualties and settlements for decades while continuing to provide unconditional military aid that enables both. Internal division has prevented any coherent policy from emerging. Supporting a two-state solution "in principle" while taking no concrete steps to advance it — and allowing settlement expansion to make it increasingly impossible — is not a policy. It's a talking point.
For more context, see the full Israel-Gaza explainer.
Republicans overwhelmingly support unconditional US military and diplomatic support for Israel. The party favors increasing military aid when needed, opposing international institutions' jurisdiction over Israel, shielding Israel from UN criticism, supporting Israeli sovereignty over settlement decisions, and defunding UNRWA. The Trump administration moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and brokered the Abraham Accords normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states.
Republicans correctly identify Israel as a strategic ally in a volatile region. Israel faces genuine security threats from multiple directions. The Abraham Accords were a genuine diplomatic achievement, normalizing relations between Israel and Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco, and Sudan — expanding regional stability. The party's straightforward support provides Israel with the security confidence needed to take risks for peace, and Republicans rightly note that the UN has disproportionately focused on Israel compared to other human rights situations globally.
Unconditional support is not alliance — it's abdication of influence. The US provides $3.8 billion per year in military aid. Using none of that leverage to advance American interests, international law, or civilian protection wastes the most powerful diplomatic tool the US has. Dismissing all criticism of Israeli military operations as anti-Israel bias ignores documented violations of international humanitarian law that undermine both Israel's security and America's credibility. Defunding UNRWA while offering no alternative for 5.9 million registered Palestinian refugees does not solve the problem — it makes it worse.
The Abraham Accords, while significant, bypassed the Palestinian issue entirely — normalizing relations with countries that had no conflict with Israel while leaving the core issue unresolved. Peace without justice is not sustainable peace. And supporting settlement expansion actively undermines the two-state solution, which both parties officially endorse and which remains the only framework with any possibility of lasting resolution.
For more on the diplomatic history, see our Israel-Gaza explainer.
The Common Good Party takes a principled, consistent position: maintain the US-Israel alliance while applying the same legal and humanitarian standards to all parties. Our framework: continue security cooperation including Iron Dome and intelligence sharing; condition offensive military aid on compliance with the Leahy Law and international humanitarian law; provide unconditional humanitarian aid to civilian populations; actively pursue a two-state solution with a concrete framework and timeline; oppose settlement expansion; support an international reconstruction fund for Gaza; hold all parties — Israeli and Palestinian — accountable for violations of international law; and position the US as a genuine mediator.
Unlike the Democratic approach, we have a coherent, unified position rather than an internal debate masquerading as policy. Unlike the Republican approach, we use America's leverage to advance both security and rights rather than writing a blank check. The CGP position is not anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian — it's pro-law, pro-security, and pro-human rights for everyone. True allies hold each other accountable. True mediators don't take sides. And true policy addresses all parties' legitimate concerns while refusing to accept violations of international law by anyone.
Every major peace agreement in the region — Camp David (1978), Oslo (1993), the Israel-Jordan treaty (1994) — involved the US using its leverage to push both sides toward compromise. The periods of greatest progress came when the US was perceived as a genuine mediator. The periods of greatest failure came when the US was perceived as an advocate for one side. The evidence is clear: unconditional support does not produce peace. Principled engagement does. The current approach has failed to produce security for Israelis or dignity for Palestinians. A different approach is not just morally necessary — it's strategically essential.
US policy on Israel-Gaza affects every American — through tax dollars, diplomatic standing, and national security. Here's what the CGP approach means.
Want to explore how the Common Good platform addresses foreign policy and national security? See our policies on defense, Ukraine, and international cooperation.
Explore the Full PlatformCommon questions about Israel-Gaza policy.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full Israel-Gaza explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into Israel-Gaza policy.
Decades of the same approach have produced neither peace nor justice. Read the full plan and see which approach actually serves both.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.