2026-11-03 / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
唐纳德·特朗普总统可以说是现代史上最亲以色列的总统。因此，他在选举日宣布美国将停止向以色列提供每年近40亿美元的援助，这一消息令人震惊。
不过，和特朗普常有的情况一样，这次在福克斯新闻上发布的声明细节不足，难以明确落实。实际上，它的影响可能没有这一震惊表态听起来那么巨大。
尽管如此，特朗普的这一举措仍是他与以色列总理本雅明·内塔尼亚胡关系中又一个引人关注的转变——内塔尼亚胡是伊朗战争中的盟友，这场战争可能会破坏共和党在周二中期选举中的胜选希望。而且，这一举措出台的时机正值关键政治节点，上周的选举没有产生明确胜者，内塔尼亚胡的未来也存在不确定性，以色列因此陷入政治僵局。
美国的政治动向同样不容忽视。从某种意义上说，特朗普似乎是在向密歇根州参议员阿卜杜勒·赛义德等民主党人让步，暗示向以色列提供援助在美国政治中正变得越来越难以维持。
这凸显了华盛顿持续已久的两党亲以色列共识出现了前所未有的裂痕。
这一问题已超出了周二中期选举后新的民主党众议院或参议院将如何处理的范畴。这一声明预示着以色列将进入一个不确定的新时代：在过去几届政府中，内塔尼亚胡一直与华盛顿的共和党人结盟，但以色列2023年10月7日哈马斯恐怖袭击后针对加沙的回应引发了国内的强烈反对，这种反对不仅来自进步派，也出现在特朗普“让美国再次伟大”运动的右翼活动人士中。
国会是否会出现支持以色列以及向其军队出售武器的多数派，这种日益增长的不确定性将对犹太国家和美国中东政策产生巨大的地缘政治影响。
特朗普喜欢制造轰动，围绕自身创造新闻并转移注意力。因此，他在福克斯新闻的采访中发表上述言论，或许是在为一个政治行动造势——许多共和党人担心，在这一天会遭到选民的严厉批评。
他显然也让福克斯新闻的主播们感到意外。
“我已经达成协议，我们每年向以色列提供40亿美元，而且几个月前就达成了协议，我们要停止……以色列能承受这一切，因为他们已经成为一个非常成功的国家了，”他说。特朗普补充称，如果以色列需要，美国会提供帮助。“但到今年年底，我们就不会再向以色列付款了。”
总统所说的显然是美国对以色列的年度军事援助，这笔资金根据前总统巴拉克·奥巴马在2016年达成的协议提供，每年不到40亿美元。该协议将持续到2028年底。
这笔资金大多用于从美国制造商专门为以色列武装部队购买武器和装备，因此这项协议对美国企业和就业有着重大影响。人们开始关注美以军事合作未来将呈现何种面貌。内塔尼亚胡在今年1月接受《经济学人》采访时表示，他希望在10年内“逐步减少”美国对以色列的军事援助，这一转变“正在推进中”。
目前尚不清楚特朗普周二的声明是否意味着美国将立即停止援助，这一举动可能很引人注目，但不会形成盟友间的战略裂痕。曾在共和党和民主党政府任职的外交政策分析师认为，以色列现在已是一个强大的经济体，不需要美国援助来购买军事装备。美国武器制造商与以色列之间的联系预计仍将紧密，双方军队最近的合作比以往任何时候都更加密切。即使在伊朗战争之前也是如此——例如，2024年拜登政府就发动了大规模的空中和海上防御行动，以击退伊朗的巡航导弹和无人机袭击。
曾在四届政府中担任白宫和国务院高级官员的布雷特·麦古尔克表示，美国对以色列的援助问题被严重误解了。“我不会夸大特朗普周二言论的意义，”麦古尔克说。
“不管他是说要在2028年协议到期时终止谅解备忘录，还是要立即停止，我都不清楚，”作为CNN全球事务分析师和新书《 Brink》作者的麦古尔克补充道，该书讲述了他在加沙危机中参与解救人质谈判的经历。
巴以问题如今成为美国国内议题
特朗普发表上述声明之际，数千万美国人正在投票，而这场竞选活动凸显了巴以问题在美国国内政治中日益交织的状况。
听到他显然是在对来自赛义德等民主党人反对美国对以色列援助的表态做出回应，着实令人意外，赛义德曾遭到特朗普一连串反穆斯林言论的攻击。这位密歇根州民主党人认为，美国人的食品价格上涨，是因为美国应以色列之命参与了一场战争。
“为什么我们要遭受像赛义德这类疯子的抨击，而他们（以色列）根本不需要援助呢？”特朗普在《福克斯与朋友们》节目中表示。“这是个糟糕的讨论点，因为你会问——‘为什么不给每个人都提供40亿美元？’”
巴以问题引发了周末赛义德与他昔日民主党初选中的对手哈利·史蒂文斯之间的冲突，后者随后转而支持共和党对手迈克·罗杰斯。史蒂文斯反对一位左翼网红制作的一则广告，该广告中一对夫妇在超市将物价上涨归咎于以色列。赛义德谴责了这则广告，他的团队表示该广告与竞选活动无关。但这场对峙凸显了围绕以色列问题的分歧，可能会给任何新的民主党国会多数派带来复杂局面。
进步派可能会将特朗普的这一转变解读为对自身立场的认同。“即使是停走的钟，一天也能准两次，”赛义德周二在接受《华尔街日报》采访时表示。然而，其他人则认为，对以色列政府的批评往往会演变成反犹太主义——赛义德等候选人否认了这一指控。
特朗普或许也在为自己争取政治胜利。终止美国对以色列的援助将符合特朗普的“美国优先”本能以及对用美国财富支持外国国家的排斥。他提出将未用完的资金用于削减赤字的论点不太有说服力，因为他两届任期内的国家债务不断膨胀。
虽然进步派因加沙的人道主义危机而对以色列感到愤怒，但在共和党内，特朗普右翼阵营反以情绪也在上升，拥有庞大受众的网红和播客主对此起到了推波助澜的作用。CNN的多尼·奥沙利文花费数月时间与特朗普支持者交流，发现许多人认为美国正在“与以色列作战”，并对美国与以色列政府的关系持怀疑态度。
在今年6月发布的奎尼皮亚克大学民意调查中，48%的受访者认为美国过于支持以色列；38%的人认为美国的支持力度大致合适；仅有7%的人认为美国的支持不够。这是自奎尼皮亚克大学2017年1月首次提出这个问题以来，认为华盛顿过于支持以色列的选民比例最高的一次。
从民主党对以色列的态度转变可以看出种种迹象，前奥巴马白宫办公厅主任拉姆·伊曼纽尔可能会在2028年竞选总统，他今年年初在特拉维夫发表演讲时，主张不要无条件向以色列提供美国军事援助，并呼吁美国与以色列建立新的关系。
从某种意义上说，以色列试图将自身的军事决策和采购与两极分化的美国国内政治分隔开来，在政治上或许是合理的。它可以自由选择采购什么，尽管实际上由于欧洲对加沙问题的强烈不满，它不太可能转向欧洲制造商。考虑到美国的反对，以色列采购俄罗斯或中国设备的想法似乎也不太可能实现。
但如果以色列仍在美國政治中成为导火索，这类情景将给它带来另一个棘手问题。总统可以授权向外国国家出售武器，议员们可以寻求阻止，但在这种情况下，推翻否决权所需的多数派可能性微乎其微。
然而，以色列的支持者还面临另一个令人担忧的可能性：政治敌意可能会促使两党中任何一方的总统都不如特朗普、前总统乔·拜登及其前任那样致力于满足其国家安全需求。
正如伊曼纽尔在7月接受CNN法里德·扎卡里亚采访时所说，以色列可能会因其自身的行动付出代价。“这不是民主党的问题，这是美国的问题，”他表示。
Trump’s Election Day bombshell on Israel points to historic shift in US politics
2026-11-03 / CNN
President Donald Trump is arguably the most pro-Israel president of modern times. So his Election Day announcement that the United States would end nearly $4 billion in annual aid to Israel was stunning.
But as is often the case with Trump, the announcement — made on Fox News — was short on details and difficult to pin down. It could end up being less seismic in practice than the shock announcement might suggest.
Still, Trump’s move was yet another intriguing twist in his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — his partner in the Iran war, which threatens GOP hopes in Tuesday’s midterm elections. And it comes at a critical political moment, with Israel in political limbo after there was no clear winner in last week’s election and uncertainty over Netanyahu’s future.
The political dynamic in the US is also impossible to ignore. In a sense, Trump seems to be conceding a point to Democrats such as Michigan Sen. Abdul El-Sayed in implying that aid to Israel is becoming politically unsustainable in US politics.
This underscores an extraordinary fracture in the long-lasting bipartisan pro-Israel consensus in Washington.
And it goes beyond the question of how a new Democratic House or Senate would handle the issue after Tuesday’s midterms. The announcement points to an uncertain new era for Israel: Netanyahu has been aligned with Republicans in Washington through several administrations, but there has been significant domestic backlash to Netanyahu’s response in Gaza to the October 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks, not only among progressives but also activists on the right of Trump’s MAGA movement.
Growing uncertainty over whether there will be a congressional majority to back Israel and arms sales to its military will create huge future geopolitical implications for the Jewish state and US Middle East policy.
Trump loves to shock, to create news around himself and to distract. So perhaps his announcement in an interview on Fox News was a political play on a day when many Republicans fear a stinging rebuke from voters.
He certainly seemed to surprise the Fox anchors.
“I have made a deal that we give Israel $4 billion a year, and we made a deal months ago that we’re stopping …. they’re fine with it because, you know, they’ve become a very successful country,” he said. Trump added that the US would help the Israelis if they needed it. “But by end of this year, we won’t be paying Israel.”
The president appeared to be referring to annual US military aid to Israel, which amounts to just less than $4 billion a year under a deal made under former President Barack Obama in 2016. That arrangement is due to run through the end of 2028.
Most of the funds are spent on buying weapons and equipment for the Israeli armed forces from exclusively US manufacturers, so the deal has significant implications for US businesses and employment. Attention is turning to what US and Israeli military cooperation will look like in future. Netanyahu told the Economist in January he wanted to “taper off” US military aid to Israeli within 10 years and that the shift was “in the works.”
It’s hard to know whether Trump’s statement on Tuesday means that the US aid would stop immediately, a step that would be intriguing but would not amount to a strategic fracture between the allies. Foreign policy analysts who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations have argued Israel is now such a powerful economy that it doesn’t need US aid to buy military equipment. The nexus between US arms manufacturers and Israel is expected to remain strong, and the militaries of the allies have recently worked together more closely than ever. That was the case even before the Iran war — for instance, when the Biden administration staged massive air and naval defensive operations to repel Iranian cruise missile and drone attacks in 2024.
Brett McGurk, who was a senior White House and State Department official for four administrations, said the issue of US aid to Israel is deeply misunderstood. “I wouldn’t overstate the significance” of Trump’s remarks Tuesday, McGurk said.
“Whether he’s talking about, we’re going to end the MOU when it ends in 2028, or we’re going to stop it right now, I don’t know,” added McGurk, a CNN global affairs analyst and author of the new book “Brink” about his role negotiating hostage releases in the Gaza crisis.
Israel and the Palestinians are now a domestic US issue
Trump’s announcement came as tens of millions of Americans are voting after an election campaign that showcased the new intertwining of the issue of Israel and the Palestinians in domestic US politics.
It was extraordinary to hear him apparently reacting to opposition to US aid to Israel from Democrats like El-Sayed, whom he’s subjected to a torrent of anti-Muslim rhetoric. The Michigan Democrat has argued that Americans are paying more for groceries because of a war the US is fighting at the behest of Israel.
“Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they (Israel) don’t need it?” Trump told Fox and Friends. “It’s a bad talking point because you’d say — ‘Why don’t we give everybody $4 billion?’”
The Israel issue caused a weekend clash between El-Sayed and his former Democratic primary foe Haley Stevens, who then endorsed his GOP rival, Mike Rogers. Stevens objected to an ad by a left-wing influencer featuring a couple in a supermarket blaming higher prices on Israel. El-Sayed denounced the ad, which his team said was not affiliated with the campaign. But the showdown encapsulated the schism over Israel that could complicate any new Democratic congressional majorities.
Progressives may interpret Trump’s shift as a validation of their positions. “Even a broken clock can be right twice a day,” El-Sayed said Tuesday, according to the Wall Street Journal. Others, however, argue that critiques of Israel’s government too often cross over into antisemitism — a charge candidates like El-Sayed deny.
Trump may also be seeking a political win for himself. Ending US aid to Israel would speak to Trump’s “America First” instincts and hostility to the use of American wealth to support foreign nations. His argument that he’d use unspent cash to pay down the deficit is less convincing, given ballooning national debt in his two terms.
While progressives are outraged at Israel because of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, anti-Israel sentiment has also been rising to Trump’s right in the Republican Party, fanned by influencers and podcasters with huge audiences. CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, who has spent months speaking with Trump supporters, found many believe the US is fighting Israel and are skeptical about the US relationship with its government.
In a Quinnipiac poll published in June, 48% of respondents said the US is too supportive of Israel; 38% said US support was about right; and only 7% said the US was not supportive enough. This was the highest percentage of voters thinking that Washington was too supportive of Israel since Quinnipiac first started asking the question in January 2017.
In a sign of how sentiment on Israel has shifted among Democrats, former Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who may run for president in 2028, has argued against unconditional US military aid to Israel and called for a new US relationship with the country in a speech in Tel Aviv earlier this year.
In one sense, it might make sense politically for Israel to try to separate its military decisions and purchases from polarizing US domestic politics. It would be free to make its own choices about what to buy, although in practice it’s unlikely to turn to Europe’s manufacturers because of huge public anger there over Gaza. The idea that it would purchase Russian or Chinese equipment seems a long shot given certain US opposition.
But such scenarios point to another headache for Israel if it remains a flashpoint in US politics. Presidents can authorize arms sales to foreign states; lawmakers can seek to block them, but in this case, the chances of veto-proof majorities seem slim.
But there’s another worrying possibility for Israel’s supporters: that political hostility produces a president from either party who is less committed to its national security needs than Trump, former President Joe Biden or their predecessors.
As Emanuel put it in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria in July, Israel could pay a price because of its own actions. “That’s not a Democratic Party problem. That’s an America problem,” he said.
发表回复