Rethinking Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME): A Policy Past Its Prime
by Jamie
Haase | Oct
31, 2025
Rethinking Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge (QME): A
Policy Past Its Prime
by Jamie Haase | Oct 31, 2025 |
In business, an edge is earned. In U.S. diplomacy, it
is handed out – nepotism with a human cost. Corporate America calls it a
“sustainable competitive advantage,” the factor that separates market leaders
from the rest, reflecting a company’s key competencies. In American foreign
policy, however, winning can be guaranteed – and the price is measured not in
profit, but in lives.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in America’s
obligation to maintain Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge
(QME), a mandate
ensuring Israel remains militarily superior to its neighbors. What began as a
Cold War–era security assurance has become a guarantee of supremacy. Under
Israel’s current government, which openly disregards human rights and
international law, the QME policy now threatens U.S. diplomacy across the
Middle East.
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s promise to arm Israel more heavily than the Soviets were equipping
Arab states has evolved into a binding status quo – perpetuating dependency,
fueling regional mistrust, and tying American credibility to Israel’s
increasingly immoral military agenda. Today, Israel faces no existential
threat, and the Middle East has changed dramatically since the 1960s.
Israel’s QME evolved after the 1967 and 1973 Arab–Israeli wars, when
threats from leaders like Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and growing Soviet
influence in the region convinced U.S. policymakers to strengthen Israel’s
military position. When France cut off arms shipments in response to
Israel’s illegal settlement expansion – which violates the Fourth Geneva Convention
and has been condemned by the UN and International Court of Justice –
Washington became Israel’s primary supplier of advanced weaponry, creating a
dependence that endures today – though no longer relevant.
Scholar Avner Cohen notes that Israel’s ambiguous nuclear capability
– never officially confirmed but widely acknowledged – has long served as a
bargaining chip with Washington. It pressured U.S. lawmakers to guarantee
Israel’s conventional military superiority, reducing the risk of nuclear
escalation. At the time, however, any nuclear provocation would have been
one-sided, since no other Middle Eastern state had comparable capabilities.
In 2008, Congress formally codified Israel’s QME
through the Naval Vessel Transfer Act, requiring that any American arms sales to other
Middle Eastern countries not adversely affect Israel’s military superiority.
For decades, pro-Israel advocacy groups, including the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have lobbied to preserve and expand such commitments
to Israel’s defense superiority. Today, Washington effectively manages the
region’s arms market to maintain that position – acting as both principal
supplier and gatekeeper.
In business, no company – even a dominant one – is
immune to consequences. Unethical behavior invites competitors, investor
losses, crashing stock prices, and destroys public trust. Israel’s QME
eliminates such checks. Unlike a market advantage, Israel’s edge is guaranteed,
regardless of respect for humanity. The United States is legally bound to
preserve that supremacy, even when it is wielded unchecked and with impunity.
Initially just an informal security measure, it has
now hardened into political dogma. Decades of lobbying and bipartisan support
have made challenging the QME doctrine nearly unthinkable; most lawmakers
reaffirm it by default. Today, Washington’s commitment to preserving Israel’s
dominance serves domestic politics as much as it serves regional security some
7,000 miles away. It helps lawmakers court voters, donors, pro-Israel lobbying
groups, and pro-Zionist evangelical constituencies – all while safeguarding
campaign contributions and staying comfortably uncontroversial. Meanwhile,
meaningful oversight remains largely absent.
This lack of accountability continues to reshape the
Middle East. By design, QME blocks any Arab or Muslim-majority country from
reaching parity with Israel. Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, for example,
remain disadvantaged, while Israel enjoys exemptions no other state receives.
The result is a rigid hierarchy that fuels resentment, weakens U.S. diplomacy,
and reinforces the perception that America’s commitment to democracy is
selective – and politically driven.
At home, the policy exposes a stark moral double
standard. Lawmakers who condemn human rights abuses elsewhere routinely vote to
expand Israel’s defense aid – even amid credible allegations of war crimes and
civilian casualties mounting in the tens of thousands, conservatively. QME acts
as a firewall, shielding Israel from scrutiny that other nations would face. By
protecting Israel’s superiority, Washington erodes its own credibility,
appearing less an honest broker and more a guarantor of permanent imbalance.
If Israel’s QME was once justified by survival, its
persistence today reflects an unwillingness to adapt. The Middle East of 2025
is vastly different from the region during the Cold War, Vietnam, and pre-9/11
eras. Israel is a regional superpower and economically advanced, yet Washington
treats its dominance as both a moral duty and a legal mandate – long after the
original rationale had faded.
True security cannot rest on permanent superiority. It
requires accountability, reciprocity, and restraint – the very qualities QME
discourages. By tying U.S. credibility to Israel’s unchecked leverage, America
loses the ability to promote stability and fairness. As long as Congress
remains captive to the political machinery defending this imbalance, U.S.
policy reflects power rather than principle.
Why does this law remain on the books, even as other
outdated policies are discarded – especially when nations like Germany, the UK,
and Italy are also supplying Israel with arms and advanced military technology? A
policy built on guaranteed dominance cannot deliver lasting peace – especially
in a region where millions live under occupation and starvation while denied
equal rights in a state that prioritizes identity over equality.
