JD Vance, Donald Trump’s newly minted nominee for vice president, has made the case for aiding Israel but not, in any significant way, Ukraine. It goes something like this: Israel is a multiplier. Whatever we give to Israel comes back to us in measurable ways, while what we give to Ukraine is essentially charity.

Military aid has never been a good fit for the “charity” descriptor because it generally comes with requirements that it be spent on American hardware, so the more accurate critique of military aid from someone with Vance’s perspective might be to compare it to a federal stimulus program. But either way, Vance’s point is clear and he is far from the only one on the political right to make this point: Aid should be more conventionally transactional. It should look more like trade—which Vance also wants less of.

Vance’s speech at the isolationist-leaning Quincy Institute, as John Podhoretz mentioned earlier this morning, remains the clearest expression of his support for Israel at a tangible policy level and not just a philosophical one. He has been fairly consistent on the need to contain and constrain Iran as well. But where he goes wrong is in making his case for Israel aid itself a case against Ukraine aid:

Via Jewish Insider, here is the crux of Vance’s case for Israel:

“Israel is one of the most dynamic, certainly on a per capita basis, one of the most dynamic and technologically advanced countries in the world,” Vance went on, citing work done on Israel’s end to “actually give us missile-defense parity. That’s a very important national security objective of the United States of America, and that’s something we’re working with one of the most innovative economies in the world to accomplish.”

And here is the part that would seem to disqualify Ukraine from the club:

“We have to sort of ask ourselves, what do we want out of our Israeli allies? And more importantly, what do we want out of all of our allies writ large? Do we want clients who depend on us, who can’t do anything without us? Or do we want real allies who can actually advance their interests on their own with America playing a leadership role,” he continued.

I would certainly contest his ungenerous choice of words for our lesser-powered friends around the world—“can’t do anything without us” is an intentionally exaggerated flourish and I doubt Vance himself would defend using that exact phrase. But the larger point is that Vance has made the case for reducing alliances the way Marie Kondo advocates decluttering: Keep it only if it sparks joy.

A follow-up question to his undeniably correct praise of Israel’s strategic value to the United States might be: At what point in Israel’s 76-year history did the Jewish state become worthy of American support?

We can all agree that Israel overcame the odds to become—at this point in history—eligible for acceptance into The JD Vance School For Gifted and Talented Nation-States. But surely that wasn’t always the case.

The State of Israel founded in 1948 was vulnerable on seemingly every front. It was poor. Its citizens rationed food. Its ability to obtain arms was precarious, to say the least. When its economy finally grew significantly, inflation threatened to swallow much of the gains.

America played an important role in helping Israel in 1973 when war again became an existential concern. Should we not have done so? Should we have instead encouraged Golda Meir to choose the nuclear option, just to prove Israel could make it on its own?

As a superpower facing a challenge for hegemony from China, should we only aid states that don’t need it? Should our general policy toward land war in Europe have been, over the past century or so, to claim neutrality and side with whomever wins?

Put it this way: Vance recognizes the value of states like Israel but does not value what it would take to enable such states to emerge in the first place.

Israel’s story is inspiring. But it’s easy to root for the underdog who managed to make it big, isn’t it, JD Vance? Who overcame all sorts of situational handicaps and road blocks despite the neglect from the world around them and the social stigma they inherited?

Ukraine’s courageous stand against the Russian military’s march on Europe is in our interest. And if we as the superpower discarded everyone who needed us more than we needed them, we would swiftly be relieved of our superpower status. I do not much worry that Vance won’t support Israel. But I do worry that he doesn’t recognize what it took for the free West to get where it is today, Israel very much included.