The Republican Party in the United States has been a staunch ally of Israel not only in their recent war with Hamas following the October 7th attacks but in nearly all conflicts. With many considering this support to be unconditional, an alternative approach to the U.S.-Israel relationship has sprung up amongst some in the Republican Party. 

This alternative view largely follows from a libertarian instinct amongst some Republicans. Thus, many Republicans who hold this alternative view tend to deviate from their more conservative-minded colleagues. 

Many of the bills in the United States that are in support of Israel are in reference to foreign aid. These bills are met with opposition by those on the fringes of the Republican Party on grounds of fiscal responsibility and a critical view of Israel’s conduct in its wars.

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) is probably the most prominent Republican who holds this more Libertarian view of Israel. Massie has voted against Israeli aid bills multiple times.

“We can’t afford the money, we’re broke … when Congress says something is paid for, what they mean is they’re taking some program that’s not paid for and they’re canceling it and substituting it with another program that’s not paid for,” Massie said in an interview with Forbes.

Many of these sentiments of withholding funding for Israel are also backed up by criticisms of how Israel is waging its war with Hamas. These criticisms are more common amongst those on the political Left than those on the political Right. Yet, many on the Right still find problems with Israel’s conduct, which has led to an estimated 1% of all civilians in Gaza being killed.

“If 1% of the US civilian population were eliminated that’d be three and a half million people, that would be a thousand 9/11s, so I don’t accept these numbers,” Massie said in a House Rules Committee hearing.

A lot of the pro-Israel legislation coming out recently has also been directed at internal U.S. affairs. Many of these bills are being seen by some Republicans as running afoul of free speech ideals and sometimes even Christian religious beliefs. 

Recently, the House passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This bill would have the Education Department use a definition of antisemitism as used by an independent group, called the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), when prosecuting people on college campuses for discrimination. 

Some Republicans opposed this bill on the grounds of free speech, while also making the point that the particulars of this bill could ban certain aspects of the Christian faith on college campuses.

“Antisemitism is wrong but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews,” Representative Majorie Taylor Greene said on a post on the social platform X.

The Republicans that deviate from the norm on the issue of Israel find themselves in interesting political waters. Many times, Republicans like Greene and Massie find themselves voting alongside Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Talib.

Massie also brought up how he is independent of the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group in American politics.

“I may be the only Republican in Congress who hasn’t done homework for AIPAC,” Massie said in an interview with Tucker Carlson.

Being on the outside of powerful lobbying groups like AIPAC means that Representatives like Massie are removed from AIPAC funding that other Representatives enjoy. AIPAC spent over $400,000 in an attempt to replace Massie in his district’s primary. Although AIPAC’s attempt was strong, Massie won 75.9% of the vote.

While Republicans are overwhelmingly pro-Israel with party norms and lobbying groups acting as powerful motivators, there are still those in the party who offer an alternative approach to the issue. Will the Republicans continue with their current path of foreign involvement or turn to Libertarian ideals of divestment?