"… Graham has been acting as a front man for both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and also for The Jewish Institute for the National Security of America (JINSA), which wrote the basic document that is being used to promote the treaty and then enlisted Graham to obtain congressional support.
Speaking to the press on a JINSA conference call, Graham said the proposed agreement would be a treaty that would protect Israel in case of an attack that constituted an “existential threat”. Citing Iran as an example, Graham said the pact would be an attempt to deter hostile neighbors like the Iranians who might use weapons of mass destruction against Israel. JINSA President Michael Makovsky elaborated on this, saying, “A mutual defense pact has a value in not only deterring but might also mitigate a retaliatory strike by an adversary of Israel, so it might mitigate an Iranian response (to an attack on its nuclear facilities).”
JINSA director of foreign policy Jonathan Ruhe added that “An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program would not activate this pact, but a major Iranian retaliation might. – An Israeli unilateral attack is not what the treaty covers, but rather massive Iranian retaliation is what we are addressing.”
Israel has long been reluctant to enter into any actual treaty arrangement with the United States because it might limit its options and restrain its aggressive pattern of military incursions. In that regard, the Graham-JINSA proposal is particularly dangerous as it effectively permits Israel to be interventionist with a guarantee that Washington will not seek to limit Netanyahu’s “options.” And, even though the treaty is reciprocal, there is no chance that Israel will ever be called upon to do anything to defend the United States, so it is as one-sided as most arrangements with the Jewish state tend to be." Unz
I was the head of DoD liaison with Israeli general staff intelligence for seven years. During that time and in subsequent decades I have had many discussions with active and retired Israeli officers on the subject of whether or not they wanted a Defense Treaty of Alliance with the United States. The answer is always the same. "No." The reason for that is simple. A treaty is normally reciprocal and they do not want to be obliged to defend the territory or interests of the United State to whatever extent the treaty's text would require.
If JINSA wants this treaty, then the Jewish Agency and the Israeli government want it. Why do they want it? IMO the answer is hidden in plain sight in the text of the "floated" document. The treaty would be activated in the event of physical attacks on Israel but also in the event of PERCEIVED existential threats.
IOW, if the Israelis were to claim that they feared an onslaught by Syria and Hizbullah they could legally claim that the US is obligated to go to war against Syria and Hizbullah.
What a good deal for Israel! Not only would they continue to receive the present river of largess in defense grants and credits but they would also under the treaty have the means with which to order the US armed forces into action against their enemies of choice whenever they wished to do so.