Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was wise to accept the US’ 10-year defense aid offer, despite its onerous conditions and a chorus of critics. The deal is for $38 billion, or $3.8 billion per year.
It is an enormously generous aid package, with the additional benefit of a 10-year binding effect. Israel cannot survive without superior armaments — in both quality and quantity — and cannot acquire them without massive American aid.
To be sure, the US benefits from the defense relationship with Israel, too. Israel is the US’ best source of extra-American intelligence in the Middle East (and sometimes elsewhere). Of particular note — a point unknown to or overlooked by critics of American defense aid generally — most of the $38 billion will be spent in the US, creating American jobs and sustaining American defense industries. The percentage that Israel may spend within Israel drops to zero by the end of the deal.
Among the criticisms of the 10-year deal are these:
Netanyahu settled for too little. He could have received $45 billion, charges former Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak says that Netanyahu ruined his chances for more aid by making an appearance before Congress to argue against the Iran nuclear deal, aggravating Obama.
Perhaps, but the opposite argument can also be made. In either case, the arguments are sheer speculation. The opposite argument is that by going to the lengths he did on the Iran deal, Netanyahu made the point just how vulnerable Israel is, that is, just how vital American defense aid is.
Another criticism: Obama cut Congress out of Israel defense aid. Congress regularly voted additional defense monies for Israel’s sophisticated missile defense systems. Congress may no longer do that, for if it does, this 10-year aid deal requires Israel to return any money Congress votes. The 10-year-deal deal adds in those amounts. They assume that the future cost of missile defense will be the same as past costs. Not to mention, for the American executive branch to cut out the legislative branch is a blatant act of disrespect for the country’s division of powers.
Would it have been worth it for Israel to postpone Obama’s 10-year offer until the next administration, possibly to negotiate better terms, such as the excision of the exclusion of Congress? That would have been a drastic miscalculation. We believe that Netanyahu anticipated the coming reality and wisely accepted, when all is said and done, an extremely generous deal.
We would very much like to be proven wrong about the next administration and how it will treat Israel. The bottom line is that notwithstanding the importance of the US’ defense of Israel at the UN particularly and throughout world forums generally, the far more important American service to Israel is the supply of armaments.
What would Donald Trump do? It’s totally unpredictable. His statements of loyalty to Israel, even if taken at face value, do not include commitment to massive defense aid to Israel.
What would Hillary Clinton do? These factors militate against any certainty as to her own commitment to massive defense aid to Israel: her intense dislike of Netanyahu personally and her rude treatment of him when she was Secretary of State; the diminishing importance of Congress and its pro-Israel lobby there, that is, the diminishing importance of the Jewish vote and voice to Clinton or any American president.
We hope we’re wrong about the next administration, whoever wins. But for now, Netanyahu rightly recognized that $38 billion is vital to Israel’s security.
Copyright © 2016 by the Intermountain Jewish News
