Israel

The Push for an Embargo on Israel Is Vague and Confused

Are critics talking about a government-to-government weapons embargo, or are they trying to shut down private trade? There's a big difference.

Matthew Petti | 7.14.2026 3:16 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Ron Sachs - CNP for NY Post/Newscom/Bob Daemmrich/ZUMAPRESS/Adani Samat)

Two prominent Democrats visited the Holy Land over the past few days. Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff to former President Barack Obama and the son of an Israeli independence fighter, gave a speech to Tel Aviv University about how the U.S. can "stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel on the long journey toward peace." Meanwhile, Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) was visiting a Palestinian village in the West Bank when his car was held up by an Israeli settler militia. The Israeli army says it dispersed the militia to let Khanna through; Khanna says that the army is "lying" and that the soldiers took the settlers' side.

Both Emanuel and Khanna embraced the idea of U.S. sanctions on Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories. Khanna told socialist talk show host Hasan Piker that a categorical "arms embargo" on Israel would be "probably too far," and presented sanctions on companies and officials dealing with settlements as a more moderate option. But Emanuel made it clear to The Jerusalem Post that sanctions on settlements were intended to be an all-out attack on the Israeli economy. "You want to pursue a greater Israel?" he said, referring to a term for the Israeli maximalist vision. "You pay full price for it. Everything. That's a choice you make."

Sanctions are one of the most powerful but misunderstood tools of U.S. power. And in their rush to realign the U.S.-Israeli relationship, Democrats (and some Republicans) risk getting ahead of their skis. The ambiguity over the word embargo is one example. An arms embargo means that the U.S. government would decline to provide the Israeli government with any weapons. A trade embargo, on the other hand, would involve the U.S. government using its enforcement powers to target private, civilian business in Israel as a form of indirect pressure on the government. These sanctions have a spotty track record in other countries, and even in theory, they only work by causing huge collateral damage.

The main Israeli-Palestinian lightning rod in U.S. politics used to be aid; Israel was the largest........

© Reason.com