Exactly 20 years ago, a newly elected Israeli prime minister — Benjamin Netanyahu — dramatically announced the following to a joint session of Congress:
“We are deeply grateful for all we have received from the United States, for all that we have received from this chamber, from this body. But I believe there can be no greater tribute to America’s long-standing economic aid to Israel than for us to be able to say: ‘We are going to achieve economic independence. We are going to do it. In the next four years, we will begin the long-term process of gradually reducing the level of your generous economic assistance to Israel.’ I am convinced that our economic policies will lay the foundation for total self-reliance and great economic strength.”
Even though Netanyahu has been prime minister for about half of the time since that July 1996 speech, and economic aid to Israel ended in 2007, U.S. military assistance has nearly doubled in that time period, and is still increasing. Indeed, Netanyahu’s office just announced the dispatch of an emissary to Washington to sign “a new memorandum of understanding between the two countries as soon as possible” to expedite an annual transfer of $3.8 billion in American funds to Israel over the next decade.
But Netanyahu was on the right track with the goal of becoming self-sufficient (I treat economic and military aid as functionally equivalent for both involve transfers of fungible money). Reams of research has established that modern foreign aid, which began after World War II, has had a nearly negligible impact on economic growth. Sound policies — free markets, equitable prices, the encouragement of exports, and holding to disciplined macroeconomic rules — matter far more. Countries with sound policies do well in the development race; those that do not have sound policies ultimately fare poorly, regardless of how much aid they receive.
Already in 1966, the economist Albert O. Hirschman commented that all development projects “are problem-ridden.” Over his distinguished career, Peter T. Bauer showed that foreign aid (in his sardonic phrasing “a process by which the poor in rich countries subsidize the rich in poor countries”) has not only not worked but had a wide range of unfortunate effects on recipient countries.
This pattern applies no less to Israel. Joel Bainerman, an economic journalist, demonstrated in a 1995 Middle East Quarterly article that American aid “brings short-term benefits but impairs a country’s long-term competitiveness” by distorting the economy. For example, it led to the building of housing in the wrong places and caused artificially inflated consumption. It also decreased Israel’s sovereignty because Jerusalem had to answer to its patron in Washington.
Happily, even if Netanyahu has lost sight of his earlier understanding, others have kept it alive. Notably, as quoted in “Ex-Israeli General: U.S. Aid Harms and Corrupts” by Barbara Opall-Rome, a remarkable former general finds that his country would be far better off — and the U.S.-Israel bond stronger — were American military donations scaled back.
Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen, once commander of Israel’s Northern Corps and now a scholar at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, finds that American aid “harms and corrupts” Israel and argues for reductions in that aid: “if this could be done in a calculated, well-planned manner, it would restore our sovereignty, our military self-sufficiency, and our industrial capacity.”
Hacohen makes the counterintuitive point that Israel’s dependence on predictable long-term U.S. military aid serves U.S. interests more than Israeli interests. That’s because what he calls Israel’s “total dependence” on U.S. aid increases blind Israeli reliance on air power and discourages innovative thinking about ground warfare.
“Israel is so addicted to advanced U.S. platforms and the U.S. weaponry they deliver that we’ve stopped thinking creatively in terms of operational concepts. For generations, we’re locked into thinking about how to improve technologically; and this is not necessarily the correct thinking when dealing with constantly innovative enemies in asymmetric conflicts. … The bitter taste of things we accomplish on our own is preferable to the sweet privileges than can imprison us.”
Furthermore, liberation from American aid removes a major source of tension: “Once we are not economically dependent on them, the partnership can flourish.”
Just as individuals are best off when self-reliant, so too are countries. Israel has a GDP of over $300 billion and a per capita income of about $40,000. The U.S. government will have a better ally by intelligently closing down the aid relationship.
Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.
@ rsklaroff:
IDF has been operating like this since 1948 BB has gotten 3 yr budgets, which includes mil budget which is largely still classified…. The IDF is also the most wasteful of all Israeli govt. institutions amounting to billions of shekels per year.
@ rsklaroff:Israel if the deal goes through does have time to wean itself from the aid if it so decides.
The USA makes certain weapons systems that we do not or they also have comparable products that are better (e.g. bunker buster bombs). We do not make fighter jets but participate in making systems for the USA jets such as the F35 (Israeli version to be called F35 Adir. To use the majority of the USA aid on these make the most sense. Many things we used to buy from the USA no longer make sense for the most part except for the aid (e.g. many different missiles).
Israel is making ever more capable drones. Many of these drone systems will replace further the need for manned planes. If we get to the point of being to make them stealth we will become even independent weapons wise.
Bear Klein Said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHGelXssja4
“While Israel’s defense establishment needs money, it needs certainty and stability even more. These will only be obtained if the agreement is signed over the next few weeks.”
Obama has insisted no supplemental deals such as the above for missile defense aid be allowed as part of the overall aid deal. Here is what one writer is predicting will happen soon with aid.
Bear Klein Said:
[concur]
Obama opposes this. I as a pragmatic person would like to see this approved as it could save Israeli lives. This is in-spite of wanting Israel to wean itself off of the aid. Wean later save lives now.
By the way the USA also benefits on this missile defense as Raytheon will get contracts not just Israel. Also many of the Israeli missile defense systems do things the USA systems do not. To be accurate the USA has helped Israel some in developing these systems. Minimally in testing them.
Ted three time I’ve attempted to post a paragraph and three time I have been spammed. What did write that cause the spamming.?
@ yamit82:
Correct…and optimal strategic planning includes maximizing strength.
@ rsklaroff:
rsklaroff Said:
Yeah as in most historical surveys, information supplied by definition must be selective Duh!!!
I never denied or rejected a need for strategic planning and haven’t the foggiest of what you mean by optimal…I always believed that all proper strategic planning and operations would be optimal as being baked in the cake by definition.
Actually your comment is just so much Gibberish. Keep trying 😉
@ yamit82:
Your selective historical survey [with which most thinkers are aware] is irrelevant with regard to the need to plan strategically, optimally
Read More:
@ rsklaroff:
@ LtCol Howard:
I submit the following in support of my main positions re: Israel and American aid assistance a very thorough study.
Economic and Strategic
Ramifications of American
Assistance to Israel
56 Sinai campaign
6 Day War…. American plans to invade Israel
1 – Department of Defense Unclassified doc.
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Science_and_Technology/505.pdf
United States had a plan for attacking Israel in 1967
http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2007/05/united-states-had-plan-for-attacking.html
@ LtCol Howard:
In any case Bibi will not give up the aid. He will close the deal as best as he can with Obama.
If I were negotiating from the USA standpoint I also would want USA industries to benefit from USA taxpayer obligations (borrowed money).
Israeli building and land allocation and zoning is bureaucratic, inefficient and a political mind field. Israel has gotten away in most fields from the past Labor-Socialist stuff that held back the Israeli economy. In housing it is still a nightmare. This is compounded by not having annexed Area C of Judah/Samaria yet and not opening it up vast expansion of Jewish Housing.
USA could if it wished pass a bill supporting Israel having Israels back with or without the aid.
The aid was used in the past (actually it was just loan guarantees (which we no longer need) to try and leverage Israel not to build in Judah/Samaria. This was by Bush 1/ Jim Baker team. The loans were for helping move Soviet Jews to Israel.
Israel needs to do what is in its best interests. Yes it should listen and discuss things with friends such as the USA but in the end it should do what it deems best.
@ Bear Klein:
Yes, aid always comes with strings attached.
The Palestinians excel at violating “understandings” as well as “firm agreements”. Here, Israel could take a lesson from the Palestinians
Many of the pressures on Israel are self-inflicted wounds. Israel, being a bureaucracy, has numerous rounds of building approvals, each of which receives international condemnation.
Israel should divide its building approvals into two classes of approval.
The first class would be to establish approved engineering/construction standards. These would be established by technicians for safety, etc. This is similar to the building codes for construction in the United States. Many of the standards are set by technical societies, etc. Then, local authorities have inspections to see whether the specific building codes (plumbing, structural integrity, electrical,Etc. ) are met. Then all one needs is approved plans to build a house. This is exactly what I did when I built my house, I purchased plans that had been approved for my political jurisdiction.The building inspector’s sole responsibility was to determine my contractor had complied with the approved plans [technical specifications}.
This second class would deal with zoning. This should be decentralized to each local jurisdiction. They would be responsible for approval and deal directly with the applicant. There should be no role for any central authority. Thus, the current building freezes would be impossible. Again, it is identical to how things are handled in the thousands of jurisdictions in the United States.
Concerning the cost of specific weapons, during the second Lebanese war, Israel was required to use cluster bombs developed and produced in the United States. These were more expensive and less reliable then the equivalent Israeli produced weapon. The duds (about 25%) were attractive metal objects that attracted children and led to civilian casualties in which criticism of Israel. So, the problem that Yamit 82 points to is genuine.
I personally believe that Israel should wean itself away from dependence on the United States. I agree that such dependence leads to arm twisting to the disadvantage of Israel. Here, Israel should bargain hard and get concessions to do what Israel should want to do all along. To announce that Israel is giving up US aid and then to feel obligated not to fight for a maximum amount of aid is giving up a bargaining card for free, which no good negotiator ever does.
The argument that more US funds would lead to less Israeli funds is a indictment of IDF and Israeli governmental leadership. This can be solved by better IDF and Israeli government leadership. When I negotiated with the Israeli leadership I made it clear that my job was to represent the interests of the United States as established by my civil and military chain of command and that it was the job of the Israeli representatives to represent Israel the best of their abilities and forcefully.
@ LtCol Howard:
{[(“I second the motion!”)]}
@ yamit82:
Author: yamit82
Comment:
@ LtCol Howard:
YOU ARE MISSING THE BIG PICTURE.The big picture that I was referring to is simple. Will the US give the world the image that the US will permit the UN and the EU to use Israel as a punching bag. For years the US has protected Israel’s back at the UN. With this administration this has been much less and there have been numerous threats that the US will not veto anti-Israel resolutions that the Security Council.
A- ISRAEL IS AMERICAS BEST SALESMAN FOR AMERICAN WEAPONS AND SYSTEMS. Actually, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are.
IF ISRAEL DOES NOT HAVE THEM AND ESPECIALLY IF WE REJECT THEM IT’S A HARDER SELL FOR AMERICAN PRODUCERS. can’t think of a single product except for iron Dome that other buyers have not lined up for. Tank fire control systems; Maverick; TOW; AWACS;
B- AID IS VIEWED BY THE AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT AS A BRIBE TO MAKE ISRAEL CONFORM AND TOE THE LINE WHEN AMERICA DEMANDS IT OF US. THAT ALLOWS MUCH INFLUENCE IN ARAB CAPITALS. Yes
C- AMERICA USES ISRAEL TO PROMOTE THE ARMS RACE AMONG ISRAELS ENEMIES AND FORCES ISRAEL TO SPEND 1.6 DOLLARS FOR EVERY DOLLAR GIVEN AND OR RECEIVED FROM SALES TO OUR ENEMIES. I have to hear more from you before I can comment on this.
AMERICA DIDN’T HELP THE JEWISH REFUGEES AND VICTIMS IN WWII,
I agree fully with this statement. American Jewish liberals refused to acknowledge this fact. Further, they refuse knowledge that there overwhelming silence during the Roosevelt administration was a contributor to the Jewish death toll.
ABANDONED ISRAEL IN 1948, Yes
AND PLANNED TO FIGHT ISRAEL ON BEHALF OF EGYPT IN 1956 AND 1967. Please cite reputable sources.
AMERICA GIVES ARABS MORE AID THAN ISRAEL Yes
AND SUPPORTS IMMENSELY BRUTAL ARAB REGIMES, Yes
BUT REMAINS SENSITIVE TO “ISRAELI TRANSGRESSIONS”, ARMS ISRAEL’S ENEMIES, REJECTS MOVING ITS EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM, AND IMPOSES ON ISRAEL THE IMPOSSIBLE TERMS OF CEASEFIRE. AMERICAN ALLIES AMONG ARABS BOYCOTT ISRAEL, SUPPORT ANTI-ISRAELI GUERRILLAS, PREPARE THEIR ARMIES AGAINST ISRAEL, BAN ISRAELIS FROM THEIR COUNTRIES, SUSTAIN MONARCHIES AND RELIGIOUS EXCLUSIVITY—AND REMAIN AMERICA’S ALLIES. THE US ADMINISTRATION’S LOGIC IS SIMPLE: IT PAYS ITS ENEMIES MORE THAN ITS FRIENDS. Yes
THE PALESTINIANS RECEIVE AS MUCH AMERICAN AID PER CAPITA AS ISRAEL, AND MUCH MORE AID IF ALL SOURCES ARE COUNTED. Yes
THE US COURTED NORTH KOREA BECAUSE OF FIVE BOMBS IN AN UNIMPORTANT REGION. Here is where you and I part company. North Korea is an extremely dangerous country in a very important region of the world. They have a conventional capability that could incinerate South Korea. They are not subject to rational control.
ISRAEL WITH 500 BOMBS IN THE WORLD’S OIL UNDERBELLY WOULD GARNER ALL THE CONCESSIONS SH E NEEDS. JEWS JUST NEED TO ESTABLISH THEIR NUCLEAR CREDIBILITY.
Exactly who would Israel preemptively bomb?
DOES ISRAEL DEPEND ON THE US FOR MILITARY RESUPPLY? TODAY, YES, AFTER DECADES OF INCREASES IN AMERICAN AID. SUCH BACKING DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE FINAL DAYS OF THE 1973 WAR. ISRAEL WON ALL HER WARS WITHOUT THE US, AND THE RESUPPLY IN 1973 CAME TOO LATE AND WENT ALMOST UNUSED. Here, you are dead wrong! The introduction of the Maverick missile devastated Egyptian command-and-control. The introduction of the Tow antitank missile reversed the Egyptian antitank missile advantage.
EGYPT TOOK THE RESUPPLY AS A CONVENIENT EXCUSE TO CONCEDE DEFEAT, The impending annihilation of the retreating and surrounded Egyptian military was a deciding factor. Also the vulnerability of Cairo
AND MADE IT A POINT OF PROPAGANDA THAT IT STOPPED THE WAR NOT BECAUSE THE ISRAELIS HAD CROSSED SUEZ AND WERE ROAMING AT WILL AT THE EGYPTIAN ARMY’S REAR, BUT BECAUSE OF AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT. IRAN SIMILARLY RATIONALIZED ITS ARMISTICE WITH IRAQ: IT WAS NOT DUE TO EXHAUSTION, BUT BECAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOWNING OF AN IRANIAN CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT.If one visits the war Museum in Cairo one gets the Egyptian propaganda view: Egypt won the war. However, the Egyptian military are acutely aware of the true situation. This is exactly why Egypt has kept the peace.
ISRAEL NEEDS NO ONE’S MILITARY HELP IF SHE RESORTS TO FIRST-USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. JUST MAKE IT A LAW THAT ANY INVASION WILL BE ANSWERED BY A NUCLEAR STRIKE. THAT’S IT. NO NEED FOR AMERICAN GUARANTEES. AND JUST HOW MANY TIMES HAS AMERICA RENEGED ON ITS PROMISES?Any such declaration will be tested with marginal attacks on Israel. Small border crossings. Several missiles fired by rogue dissident groups. Etc. Etc. Asymmetrical warfare techniques would gobble at Israel …such as the knife intifada.
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF AMERICAN WEAPONS FOR ISRAEL, THAT’S ANOTHER MISCONCEPTION PERPETUATED BY THOSE WHO WANT ISRAEL TO CONTINUE BEGGING FOR US AID AND SO SUBMIT TO THE WHIMS OF US ADMINISTRATIONS, OR RATHER TO THE JEWISH ESTABLISHMENT WHICH CLAIMS TO MANIPULATE THOSE WHIMS. ISRAEL WON THE SIX DAY WAR WITHOUT ASKING AMERICA FOR RESUPPLY OF WEAPONS. PREEMPTION ALWAYS PAYS.Some yes; some no. Israel’s top military scientists know which is which. The US’s Top military scientists know which is which. Unfortunately, bloggers with prejudices and simple solutions do not know which is which.
Further, there is an Israeli braggadocio that nearly led to Israel’s destruction during theYom Kippur war.
Yam 82, much of what you say makes a lot of sense. Much of what you feel may be justified ,but it gets in the way of a cold and realistic analysis of the world as it is. As another poster to this site has said, you start off with logic and facts and then reach emotional and nonrelevant conclusions. I do not know the answers. But I know for certain that you do not know the answers.
accepting aid and developing a domestic industry are mutually exclusive [desirable] phenomena, satisfying disparate [worthwhile] needs; let’s not “toss the baby with the bathwater” by unilaterally rejecting the former, which would only unduly stress the latter
@ rsklaroff:
I was not trying to refute his points. As I said in my remark to him his points were interesting.
What is of primary interest to me is the Independence of Israel and its security. I believe Israel can ween itself off this aid and achieve both.
If we are producing more weapons ourselves we can then also sell these weapons on the international marketplace. Just like we are very successfully with drones. This grows the Israeli economy for one and Israel does not have to worry about the next USA President who finds fault with Israel and tries to shut down its weapons supply.
Independence is best for Israeli security and choices of what we do in the Land of Israel.
If you disagree fine no problem.
@ yamit82:
As usual, you start factually and end ridiculously; the nuke-foundation for a foreign military policy is dangerous [on multiple levels] beyond words.
@ LtCol Howard:
You are missing the big picture.
A- Israel is Americas best salesman for American weapons and systems. If Israel does not have them and especially if we reject them it’s a harder sell for American producers.
B- Aid is viewed by the American establishment as a bribe to make Israel conform and toe the line when America demands it of us. That allows much influence in Arab capitals.
C- America uses Israel to promote the arms race among Israels enemies and forces Israel to spend 1.6 dollars for every dollar given and or received from sales to our enemies.
America didn’t help the Jewish refugees and victims in WWII, abandoned Israel in 1948, and planned to fight Israel on behalf of Egypt in 1956 and 1967. America gives Arabs more aid than Israel and supports immensely brutal Arab regimes, but remains sensitive to “Israeli transgressions”, arms Israel’s enemies, rejects moving its embassy to Jerusalem, and imposes on Israel the impossible terms of ceasefire. American allies among Arabs boycott Israel, support anti-Israeli guerrillas, prepare their armies against Israel, ban Israelis from their countries, sustain monarchies and religious exclusivity—and remain America’s allies. The US Administration’s logic is simple: it pays its enemies more than its friends.
The Palestinians receive as much American aid per capita as Israel, and much more aid if all sources are counted.
The US courted North Korea because of five bombs in an unimportant region. Israel with 500 bombs in the world’s oil underbelly would garner all the concessions she needs. Jews just need to establish their nuclear credibility.
Does Israel depend on the US for military resupply? Today, yes, after decades of increases in American aid. Such backing did not exist before the final days of the 1973 war. Israel won all her wars without the US, and the resupply in 1973 came too late and went almost unused. Egypt took the resupply as a convenient excuse to concede defeat, and made it a point of propaganda that it stopped the war not because the Israelis had crossed Suez and were roaming at will at the Egyptian army’s rear, but because of American involvement. Iran similarly rationalized its armistice with Iraq: it was not due to exhaustion, but because of the United States’ downing of an Iranian civilian aircraft.
Israel needs no one’s military help if she resorts to first-use of nuclear weapons. Just make it a law that any invasion will be answered by a nuclear strike. That’s it. No need for American guarantees. And just how many times has America reneged on its promises?
About the importance of American weapons for Israel, that’s another misconception perpetuated by those who want Israel to continue begging for US aid and so submit to the whims of US administrations, or rather to the Jewish establishment which claims to manipulate those whims. Israel won the Six Day War without asking America for resupply of weapons. Preemption always pays.
@ Bear Klein:You failed to refute the multiple points made by the LtCol…supplanting cogent-argument with hypothetical-opinion.
@ LtCol Howard:Your insight is interesting. The trouble is the aid comes with strings stated or implied.
Dependence is an issue. Politician always spend more money than they have. So since money is fungible Israel will spend less on the IDF from its own purse if provided USA funds. In lieu of this with the coming gas monies Israel should wean itself off of the money. Its relationship with the USA could be better grounds or somewhat closer to equal.
This would allow for building or annexing whatever we believe we should or not fighting the next war with one hand tied behind our backs because our chief supplier does not like seeing too many dead Hamas.
All dots connected.
Most of Daniel Pipes micro arguments are correct. However, he misses the big picture as to the damage of Israel.
Sen. Graham and nearly every member of the US military believes that military aid to Israel is a sign of symbolic support for Israel’s survival that is read clearly throughout the world. Any current cut back in support will be viewed as an American abandonment of support for Israel.
The argument by various Israeli generals that US aid blinds IDF planning is an indictment of the IDF planning structure and planning personnel. If true, this means a housecleaning is necessary within the IDF.
The White House staff led by Ben Rhodes and Robert Malley want to sever ties with Israel as a demonstration of solidarity with the Shiite Islamic world. This attempt to impose additional constraints on the current agreement and its extensions is a test case.
Previous test cases included when the Obama administration terminated (temporarily) automated US resupply to the IDF during the Gaza war. This was billed by the White House as routine re-examination of procedures but was read as a warning to Israel: “listen to us or we will cut you off “.
The closing of Ben-Gurion Airport was another threat to Israel which says that on a pretext we will cut off your international lifeline “so you better “listen to us”.
Daniel pipes can be located at daniel.pipes@gmail.com or at pipes@Meforum.org
I suggest that readers contact him directly and urge him not to inadvertently build up the power and the thrust of the BDS and other pro-Palestinian movements whose announced public aim is to first isolate and then destroy the current state of Israel.
@ yamit82:
Try Amazon, you’re a clever Zev
@ honeybee</a
Can't get it in Israel
Ted Comment was botted pls retreive and post
the assumption – deftly inserted by BHO – is that the “buy American’ mandate cannot be overcome; aid could be de-tethered to such a requirement – if necessary – thereby NOT automatically harming Israeli industry
@ diana:
@ yamit82:
may I suggest you watch the AMC channel production f John L’Carre’s novel ,” The Night Manager” about the illegal arms trade.
Aid has built powerful constituencies for its continuation, regardless of results.
Israel should offer to go without any U.S. military aid
Israel Does Not Benefit from US Foreign Aid In Real Terms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPhruClcvyQ
@ Bear Klein: That he’s an Islamist is the driving-force, for he’ll find any subsidiary rationale to feed his unadulterated and unjustified hatred.
@ diana: Erodgan is an Islamist and is the friend of Hamas and wants to be the major Sunni Ruler (Sultan).
He is an anti-Semite. He first got mad when Olmert gave him disinformation when Israel would strike Hamas. Erodgan passed this information on to Syria and Hamas. Israel hit Hamas not suspecting a strike.
Next Erodgan thought Israel would not dare stop a Turkish ship from reaching Gaza the Mavi Mara. We did enforce the blockade and some Turks from the IHH (Turkish terror group) got killed. He was made to look the weak fool again to this small country of Jews.
Those are these reasons Erodgan hates Israel.
@ akoven:
Thus, an absolute “Israel must become independent” is morphed – properly – into a “conditional” status; this may be a lofty goal but, in the interim, Israel must accept whatever help she is proffered.
Trump is obviously not “right” all the time but then again who is?
Yes, but that for wiser men than I to decipher. It is all in the “Art of Negotiation”
@ akoven:
Undoubtedly so, but they become problematic only when those strings become constraining ropes and/or yield puppetry.
@ Bear Klein:
Israel has the capacity – particularly with BB’s guidance – to “walk and to chew gum simultaneously” and, thus, the aid shouldn’t be shorted; fear of a northern attack [noting the missile-inventory] should unnerve thinkers/activists sufficiently to adopt a realistic [“I’ll take all the help I can get”] posture.
@ akoven:
He’s brilliant, but perhaps he harbors motives that were so deep as to have been indiscernible…both last year and currently; for example, he predicted the Egypt/Turkey coups during prior discussions [along with 9-11, of course] so, quite honestly, I don’t know what’s gotten into him.
All he said last year in his rhetorical defense was that Congress would have had no “say” absent C-C, and he ignored BOTH the fact that support was building for a non-amended bill AND the fact that his version would undermine the treaty-threshold of acceptance [67] by creating a resolution-threshold of rejection [34].
Everyone accepts, now, that it [the JCPOA] is a sham, but even his employees with whom “chats” have been held have FAILED to provide a modicum of feedback as to his current stance; this article [which fails to recognize intuitively that one can accept aid without becoming dependent thereupon] must be added to the list of “confusing assertions [absent his penchant for extensive hyperlinked documentation].”
@ Ted Belman:
There are always strings attached.
@ diana:
Erdo?an is an Islamist.
Can somebody be kind enough to explain to me why Erdogan was/is “p” at Israel? I understand MB=Erdogan and its ramifications: Gaza, etc…………..I want something more out of the box……….Thanks.
Israel needs to be independent. Taper the aid down and get used to living without it. The aid has been used against Israel to leverage our actions numerous times.
Israel as a small example makes a missile like the Hellfire (USA) which is used on helicopters. Obama did not like us killing to many Hamas too fast so he stopped the resupply during the last Gaza War. Israel can now produce its own missile and also export it for less than the Hellfire costs on the international market.
The leverage is also used with building in Judah/Samaria whether spoken of or not.
Daniel Pipes is no friend of Israel. He considers himself an intellectual but in reality, in opinion, he is cerebreally disjointed and confused. Personally, I believe him to be a malcontent troublemaker without merit.
Now, you are focusing on the key-component of what BHO is attempting to do: “Buy American” is the underlying hook that is OPTIONAL.
Thus, with all due respect to the author of this piece, he avoids tackling what the second writer [and the first writer] emphasized, to wit, that the anti-terrorism/military aid provided by the USA to Israel is a mutually-beneficial phenomenon.
Israel can exercise relative levels of flexibility for now, such as branching to Putin/Africa/Asia/India, but strong links with the #1 military force in the world should be maintained…absent rationalization for how assistance is [or is not] provided.
@ rsklaroff:
This article is not about Pipes. It is about the idea of cancelling the aid. Many people on Israpundit have expressed similar views. The feeling is that what we buy is too expensive and can be produced by us or bought elsewhere at much lower cost. Secondly there are many strings attached.
If Israel were to spend her own money on producing arms we would create n even bigger export industry and many spin offs. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Israel is the testing ground for every new weapon that the US produces.
Ignored herein is the overriding goal of strategically provided aid, namely, enhancing Israel’s survival, for the acceptance of BOTH “sound policies” and military support constitutes mutually-exclusive phenomena [notwithstanding “goals”].
I stopped listening to Daniel when I confronted him @ a RJC meeting [with Rep. McMorris-Rodgers] due to his support for Corker-Cardin @ a crucial lobbying moment, in April 2015 [as documented in 20 op-eds I have composed since then].
Regrettably, even after having attempted to prevail upon his MEF-colleagues, I haven’t looked back.