U.S Military Aid to Israel.

 

Dennis Ross, currently a leading research scholar at The Washington Institute, for Near East Policy, posted an op-ed in Tablet Magazine recently. The piece criticised proposals to end U.S military assistance to Israel.

Ross formerly served in senior national security positions with the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations, including as Clinton’s top Arab-Israel envoy.

Here are some of the remarks he made: -

“When authors as diverse as Nicholas Kristof, Jacob Siegel, and Liel Leibovitz all write about ending U.S. military assistance to Israel, it is noteworthy. Writing in Tablet Magazine, Siegel and Leibovitz are convinced  that the aid gives the U.S. a veto over Israeli actions, makes money for U.S. weapons manufacturers, and feeds the commonly held fiction among Israeli critics that Israel is handed a blank check. This last point, Leibovitz and Siegel legitimately argue, is not only untrue but serves the purposes of those who accuse advocates for Israel in the U.S. of serving Israel’s interest at the expense of America’s. The dual loyalty implication is not subtle and has long been an anti-Semitic trope. Siegel and Leibovitz see ending military assistance to Israel as a way of taking away this argument. Although valuable, for them that is a secondary reason for ending the military assistance. Siegel and Leibovitz believe Israel will be better off without it: It will reduce American leverage on Israel, mean Israel’s hands won’t be tied by Washington, and permit Israel to benefit from being “able to shop on the open market” and no longer be tied to U.S. equipment and its cost overruns and technical problems.

Kristof’s perspective, appearing a few days later in The New York Times, is different. He looks at the high costs of $3.8 billion a year in military assistance to Israel as being unnecessary because it is a country that is no longer poor and has a per capita income greater than Japan and a number of the Western European members of NATO.”

 A brief ‘aside.’ Admittedly we are no longer a poor nation, but the judicial overhaul advanced by the Netanyahu government has adversely affected Israel’s credit ratings. The Big Three credit rating agencies S&P Global Ratings, Moody’s and Fitch Group, have all responded negatively indicating a credit downgrading.

 Back to Dennis Ross-

 “To be fair, Kristof is talking about beginning a discussion and not abruptly cutting our military assistance to Israel, but clearly the aim is to get there.

The intent of Siegel, Leibovitz, or Kristof may not be to contribute to those who are increasingly critical of Israel—and who would love to see the U.S. apply real pressure on it by cutting off military assistance and ending political support for it. But that will surely be the effect of their articles. Yes, even those who are generally supporters of Israel may favour applying pressure at a time when Israel’s government includes messianic nationalists and ultra religious parties—and is pushing an agenda that many Israelis believe is threatening to the democratic identity of the country. These Israelis, and their supporters in the U.S., want to show that the costs of the Netanyahu government’s policies are high, and are taking a terrible toll on support for Israel in America and internationally.”

Another critic, Ivan Eland is in a category of his own. He is an American defence analyst and writer. In addition, Eland is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Centre on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute. 

Eland's writings generally propose libertarian and non-interventionist policies. He is also a critic of the Affordable Care Act and race-based affirmative action. Regarding global warming, he does not believe in climate change. He argues that the threats posed are sensationalised.

Here is his contribution to the debate: -

“Aid to Wealthy Israel Has Reached Its Expiration Date.

Recent events in the country, along with its ranking in per capita income charts, provide a fresh opportunity for Washington to reassess its financial support.” Wrote Ivan Eland a few days ago. “The weeks of intense turmoil in Israel over its future provides an opportunity for the United States to reassess its own policy toward that country.”

Further to that he argues, “The heavily indebted United States (federal debt owned by the public has reached nearly 100 percent of U.S. GDP) provides almost $4 billion in annual military aid to a rich country that has long been able to afford to pay for its own defence. Ending that largesse is long overdue.”

 

 

 Israeli Air Force (IAF) McDonnell Douglas F-15I Ra'am in flight

The Knesset’s recent adoption of the law revoking the reasonability provision  in court rulings will only add to this impulse.

Understandable, perhaps, but is cutting military assistance the right tool for that? No, it is not. Siegel, Leibovitz, and Kristoff generally act as if cutting off assistance would have little or no effect on the way the Iranians and Hezbollah would read the situation and American support for Israel.”

Recent Hezbollah provocations along the border with Lebanon caused Defence Minister Yoav Gallant to warn Hezbollah General-Secretary Hassan Nasrallah, “Make no mistake, you have made mistakes in the past, you have paid a heavy price. if your continued provocations develop into an open conflict, we will return Lebanon to the Stone Age.” The rhetoric is not new, nevertheless it was intended to remind Nasrallah of Israel’s “Dahiya Doctrine” The doctrine is named after the Dahiya neighbourhood of Beirut, where Hezbollah was headquartered during the 2006 Lebanon War.” The neighbourhood was heavily damaged by the IDF during that war.”

Just the same, Dennis Ross believes that Hassan Nasrallah is becoming far less risk-averse. Cut off American assistance now, or say we will plan to do so, and the Iranians and Hezbollah will up the ante and make a conflict far more likely. Does Israel need a multifront conflict? Would that serve America’s interests?

Israel’s senior military and intelligence officials are not looking to go to war now, and to a person would oppose the cut off of American military assistance to Israel, and not because they have some financial stake in assistance from America.” 

 Another personal observation: - Nasrallah’s ‘spider web simile likening Israel’s strength to no more than the blown-in-the-wind strands of a spider’s web, is no more than bravado echoing from the depths of his underground bunker.

“Moreover”, says Ross, “the argument that Israel should not want to be tied to American military equipment is simply wrong-headed. Every Israeli leader wants to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge, and it is American equipment that provides it. Our weapons remain cutting edge, highly sought after by everyone, and Israel needs not just F-35s but F-15Is for long-range missions. Moreover, Israel’s development of Iron Beam—a laser-based defensive system that can be a cost-effective game-changer in countering tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets and drones—requires more security assistance from the U.S. to make it operational sooner rather than later. (Iron Beam will also be beneficial for our military and is another example of how our security assistance to Israel also benefits our forces).”

At this juncture I want add another margin note: - The successful combat missions flown by Israeli air force pilots in Lebanon, Syria and ‘other places’ constitute an added value factor that is undoubtedly appreciated by the current U.S. administration.

Returning to Dennis Ross’ comments -

“One should not only think of the impact of cutting security assistance on Israel and Iran/Hezbollah, but also on others in the region. U.S. presidents have repeatedly said our commitment to Israel is “ironclad”—and a cut off of military assistance could, of course, be tied to reaffirmations of our commitment to Israeli security. But at a time when the Saudis, Emiratis, and others doubt our staying power in the region, the announcement that we are cutting military assistance to Israel will reinforce their view that we are leaving the Middle East. That will surely feed their instinct to further hedge bets—hardly something likely to serve our interests.

Bottom line: Whether thinking about what is in our interests or Israel’s, cutting military assistance to Israel at this time is wrong-headed. It will send the wrong signal at the wrong time, and increase the risk of conflict in the region.”

Have a good weekend.

 

Beni,                          9^th of August, 2023.