Israel is in the headlines, evoking tumultuous debate. Yet
one topic remains largely unmentionable, so let me gingerly raise it: Is it
time to think about phasing out American aid for
Israel down the road?
اضافة اعلان
This is not about whacking Israel. But does it really make
sense for the United States to provide the enormous sum of $3.8 billion
annually to another wealthy country?
I don’t think any change should happen abruptly or in a way
that
jeopardizes Israeli security. The reason to rethink American aid is not to
seek leverage over Israel — although I do think we should be tougher on Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is extinguishing any hope of a two-state
solution and is, in the words of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, “determined
to degrade Israel into a corrupt and racist dictatorship that will crumble
society.”
Rather, the reason to have this conversation is that
American aid to another rich country squanders scarce resources and creates an
unhealthy relationship damaging to both sides.
Today, Israel has legitimate security concerns but is not in
peril of being invaded by the armies of its neighbors, and it is richer per
capita than Japan and some European countries. One sign of changed times:
Almost a
quarter of Israel’s arms exports last year went to Arab states.
The $3.8 billion in
annual assistance to Israel is more than
10 times as much as the U.S. sends to the far more populous nation of Niger,
one of the poorest countries in the world and one under attack by jihadis. In
countries such as Niger, that sum could save hundreds of thousands of lives a
year, or in the United States, it could help pay for desperately needed early
childhood programs.
Aid to Israel is now almost exclusively military assistance
that can be used only to buy American weaponry. In reality, it’s not so much
aid to Israel as it is a backdoor subsidy to American military contractors,
which is one reason some Israelis are cool to it.
“Aid provides the U.S. with no leverage or influence over Israeli decisions to use force; because we sit by quietly while Israel pursues policies we oppose, we are seen as ‘enablers’ of Israel’s occupation.”
“Israel should give up on the American aid,” Yossi Beilin, a
former Israeli minister of justice, told me. He has argued that the money can
be used more effectively elsewhere.
Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S.
ambassador to Israel, agreed.
“Israel’s economy is strong enough that it does not need
aid; security assistance distorts Israel’s economy and creates a false sense of
dependency,” Kurtzer said in an email. “Aid provides the U.S. with no leverage
or influence over Israeli decisions to use force; because we sit by quietly
while
Israel pursues policies we oppose, we are seen as ‘enablers’ of Israel’s
occupation.”
He continued: “And U.S. aid provides a multibillion-dollar
cushion that allows Israel to avoid hard choices of where to spend its own
money and thus allows Israel to spend more money on policies we oppose, such as
settlements.”
At some point when running for president in the last
election, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren all suggested
conditioning
aid to Israel. A poll of American Jews found a majority supported
assistance but also favored some restrictions on aid so it could not be used to
expand settlements.
It’s not just liberals. “Cut the stranglehold of aid,” Jacob
Siegel and Liel Leibovitz argued recently in Tablet magazine, saying that the
aid benefited the U.S. and its arms manufacturers while
undercutting Israeli companies.
There’s a legitimate counterargument that any reduction in
aid could be perceived as a pullback of support for Israel in ways that might
invite aggression by, say, Iran. That risk can be mitigated by approaching the
issue as a long-term discussion for the next bilateral memorandum of
understanding about aid, due by 2028 and likely to stand for 10 years, and by
reaching other security agreements with Israel (as Beilin and Kurtzer
recommend).
Martin Indyk, who twice served as U.S. ambassador to
Israel, also favored new security agreements and said that it’s time to have this
discussion about ending aid.
“Israel’s economy is strong enough that it does not need aid; security assistance distorts Israel’s economy and creates a false sense of dependency,”
“Israel can afford it, and it would be healthier for the
relationship if
Israel stood on its own two feet,” he said.
The issue is politically sensitive, of course. Just a couple
of years ago, more than 325 members of the House of Representatives signed a
letter opposing any drop in aid to Israel.
“There’s a serious conversation that should be had ahead of
this next memorandum of understanding about how best to use $40 billion in U.S.
tax dollars,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, an advocacy
group. “Yet instead of a serious national security discussion, you’re likely to
get a toxic mix of partisan brawling and political pandering.”
I think we can do better, if we all approach this in a
nonideological, patient way exploring what is best for both countries.
“determined to degrade Israel into a corrupt and racist dictatorship that will crumble society.”
Aaron David Miller, who was for many years a State
Department Middle East analyst and negotiator, argued for barring aid to any
military units that commit gross violations of human rights. He also told me,
“Under the right conditions and in a galaxy far, far away, with
U.S.-Israeli relations on even if not better keel, there would be advantages to both to see
military aid phased out over time.”
That’s the way we should think about this, as a conversation
we need to move toward. We’d all benefit by finding the maturity to discuss the
unmentionable.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
