In the mid-1990s, a very enigmatic statement began to appear in the rhetoric of high-ranking Israeli officials. They began to call publicly for the elimination of US foreign aid to Israel.
That call was echoed by pro-Israeli American supporters, the Israeli lobby and the now famous neocons. What was going on? Why would Israel, America’s largest recipient of foreign aid and a debtor nation, want to cut off that beneficence? And why has the United States with its recent announcement of the $60 billion military package to the Middle East, finally fulfilled the Israeli wish by stating that over the next 10 years, we will totally phase out economic aid to Israel starting next year?
First of all, let’s look at some facts about the US foreign aid program and Israel. The United States has provided the rest of the world with almost one trillion dollars in foreign aid since the end of World War II. The majority of those funds started moving away from their initial regional emphasis, largely East Asia, into the Middle East, primarily Israel, in the mid-1970s.
The foreign aid funds are provided through the Foreign Assistance Act which lists as a highest and first priority for the recipient nations, “Alleviating the worst physical manifestations of poverty among the world’s poor majority” in the official language of the act.
Now let’s look at Israel which receives almost one third of our American foreign aid. Let’s start with some data and comparisons. Israel is usually listed as the world’s 16th wealthiest country in terms of per capita income. Israel has a higher per capita income than many European countries including Portugal and Spain. It has a higher Gross National Product than Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza combined. With the exception of many of Israel’s Arab citizens who likely don’t receive any US foreign aid benefits, Israel hardly appears to be part of the “world’s poor majority”. What about all of the poverty-ridden countries in Africa? Aren’t they more needy potential recipients of US foreign aid? But, in any case, why should Israel look a gift horse in the mouth? In 1996, then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a standing ovation on the floor of Congress when he vowed to reduce Israeli dependence on US aid. Many pro-Israeli pundits immediately supported his statement in the media. It was really a noble and unselfish gesture, wasn’t it? Not exactly. Let’s see what the Jerusalem Post has to say about US foreign aid to Israel.
In the June 17, 2007 issue of the Jerusalem Post, an article entitled “Should Israel Really Be Asking For An Increase in US Aid?” stated:
“There are four reasons to continue reducing the (US) aid, and eventually eliminating it.
— First, since 1976, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of US foreign assistance. In the past 55 years, Israel has received more than $84 billion in grants alone. Annual per capita American aid to Israel is more than $340, which is by far the highest in the world. Average global aid per capita is only $22... From a moral point of view, Israel’s place at the top of the list of aid recipients, ahead of all poor and sick and malnourished Third World countries, is, to say the least, problematic.
— The desire for economic independence highlights a second reason for decreasing the aid.
— Israel’s financial dependence on the United States is a diplomatic liability.
— True, this leverage has not been used by the US since 1956’s brutal American pressure to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula, but that is only because there is no need for anything explicit to be said. The American leverage over Israel, inter alia due to financial dependency, is manifested by the ever-present question: “What will the United States say?”
— A third reason for decreasing aid is maintaining long-term political support in the US. At some point, Americans will grow weary of the burden. It is already possible to detect potential warning signs. In 2003, against the wishes of the pro-Israel lobby, Congress included aid to Israel in an across-the-board cut in all foreign aid.
And in 2005, both the administration and Congress cold-shouldered an Israeli request for extra assistance to offset the costs of disengagement from Gaza. Important voices calling to engage more seriously in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (a euphemism for pressuring Israel) indicate growing willingness in the US to acknowledge that Israel is not just a “strategic asset,” but also a diplomatic liability.
— A fourth and final reason for decreasing aid is the economic advantages it will bring. American aid comes with strings, some of which shackle Israel’s defense industry. Decreasing or eliminating American aid would help this sector in four ways. One, the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) would buy more in Israel, investing in the local economy. Two, additional purchases by the IDF would bolster the reputation of Israeli firms, and thus their sales. Three, Israel’s defense exports would be at least partly unshackled by American restrictions. Four, paying for purchases in the US with Israeli money would increase the volume of reciprocal purchases by American firms in Israel.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. But does Israel really want to eliminate its main source of funding, the United States taxpayer?
Of course not. The main key to this puzzle resides in reason four in the Post article and the now infamous “Clean Break” paper written for Israel in 1996 by neocon Richard Perle and others.
Read my next article on Israel, the company, rather than Israel, the country and see if you guessed the answer to this mystery correctly.
