1) Harris wants to condition U.S. military aid to Israel, $3.3B per annum, (100% military) on how it uses that aid. In rigid self-defense, full aid; in partial self-defense, partial aid. Etc.
2) Harris does not condition aid to Egypt, which gets $1.5B (89% of which is military); or Saudi Arabia, which gets $1.1B, 22% of which is military.
"Oh, but I did, and I did," should be my response.
The undersigned did oppose foreign aid to Egypt after the coup d'etat in 2014, and to the House of Saud in 2017. The Obamas wouldn't certify that a coup had occurred in Egypt in 2014 because U.S. law prohibits giving military aid to countries that have had coups.
Then there is the matter of the purpose of U.S. foreign aid. Aid of any type may be given, "to support global peace, security, and development efforts, and provide humanitarian relief during times of crisis."
We can ignore that, as we did the Al-Sissi coup in Egypt, but I did not. We can be charged with favoritism, or worse, anti-ism, if we ignore the purpose in one instance and enforce it in the other. To avoid the charge however is not to ignore the purpose in all instances lol. But, to repeat, the undersigned did, and does still, oppose military aid to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia. The undersigned has gone further. The undersigned takes the purpose of U.S. foreign aid seriously, as it was intended to be taken, and it is cynically preposterous to argue that our aid to Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia has supported "global peace, security." I have proposed that if we are to so flagrantly ignore the stated purpose of foreign aid that we just stop giving it.
If the United States were to condition aid to Israel on the purpose of foreign aid (which the U.S. will never do) and not so condition aid to other states, it is imperfect defense, but defense still, that "to whom so much more is given, more is expected." Of course you are more concerned to whom you give an AK-47 than him you give a Saturday Night Special. I do agree however, that in the instances of Egypt and Israel, were I to propose conditioning aid to Israel and not conditioning aid to Egypt that could raise a genuine concern of anti-Semitism.
Then I should respond that there are relevant matters of proportion and duration, and "saturation". Less than half as much aid is given to Egypt as to Israel, a smaller share still at 89% military; in Saudi Arabia's case, one-third the total amount of foreign aid given to Israel, 7.3% of the amount of military aid given to Israel. Duration: Israel, all of its existence, 73 years; Egypt, 75 years; Saudi Arabia 4 years. Cumulatively, the U.S. has given Israel more total foreign aid, $146B, than any other country in the world since World War II. "Saturation": The United States has propped up Israel all of its existence. We were the first country to grant recognition; we protected Israel from destruction in 1973, and have used our Security Council veto 42 times to protect Israel out of 83 total times we have ever used our veto. This is the root of my feeling. After 73 years Israel must stand, or fall, on her own.
Thus, if the charge of anti-Semitism is made against me and others who think like me on the above two grounds I am content with our defense. If the charge is not based on the above then I demand a statement of particulars. Nicholas Kristof did not offer particulars as to why proposing to condition U.S. aid to Israel raised a "genuine" concern of anti-Semitism and, it being the first time I had ever heard of such a thing, I am only speculating as to the reasoning.