Does Israel need so much aid?

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