US Aid to Israel: Questioned on Both the Left and the Right

Believe it or not, outside of Capitol Hill, America’s $3 billion per year of military aid to Israel actually gets discussed.

On the left, the discussion of aid to Israel is one of several major dividing lines over what are seen as “acceptable” peace groups (J Street, Americans for Peace Now, Churches for Middle East Peace, et al) and those that are not (Jewish Voice for Peace, the US Campaign to End the Occupation). Of course, “acceptable” in this case is decided by the centrist part of the “pro-Israel” contingent, which is doing harm to Israel and Israelis daily, but that’s a matter for another time.

The latter groups call for the US to withhold aid to Israel until it ends its occupation and complies with international law. There are other calls to end aid to Israel which are starker and more hostile to Israel. But in the past year, I have heard more and more activist groups, including some who are sympathetic to Israeli fears and concerns, considering working on campaigns to stop American military aid to Israel.

Indeed, some prominent mainstream voices are starting to weigh in on this issue. Whether one supports ending or threatening aid to Israel or not, the fact that it is being discussed more openly should be welcome in any free society.

There are also those on the right who have long advocated for an end to US aid to Israel. These calls have come more from pundits and individuals than from groups, and are based on entirely different considerations from any of the rather wide spectrum of views mentioned above.

The notion is that, contrary to the view of peace groups, the aid the US gives Israel already constrains its actions and Israel would be better off without the aid but with the freedom to act without US interference.

This notion was most prominently promoted in the “Clean Break” paper. This was an advisory paper prepared for Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, during Bibi’s first term as Prime Minister by an advisory group of neoconservatives led by Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle. The group consisted of prominent American and Israeli neocons. Continue reading

Coteret: Yediot’s defense analyst on the looming US-Israel ’security catastrophe’

Didi Remez, at Coteret, posts a translation of an article in Yediot today. The article is by Alex Fishman, who is second to none in Israel for providing important and keen insight into the thinking of Israel’s security establishment.

Fishman gives an enormous amount of background into the wheeling and dealing between US and Israeli leaders over the past few months around the bizarre gift the US has offered to Israel in exchange for a mere 90-day settlement moratorium. He also explains just how Bibi maneuvered the US into it and how he subsequently found himself in a trap alongside the one he snared Obama in.

An absolute must-read. I include a few excerpts from Coteret’s translation below, but do read the article in fullContinue reading

Latest US Incentives to Israel: Much Ado About Little

The US has made its offer to Israel for a 90-day “moratorium” on settlement construction in the West Bank. Some see this as a major setback in US policy. I have to say, it seems to me to be much ado about nothing.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

In exchange for this moratorium, which will include a stoppage of any work begun since the end of the last “freeze” but would not include Jerusalem, the US would grant Israel the following:

  • the U.S. government would deliver 20 F-35 fighter jets to Israel, a deal worth $3 billion
  • if an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is achieved, the U.S. would sign a comprehensive security agreement with Israel
  • The US would fight against “de-legitimization” of Israel, which would include:
    • curbing actions by the United Nations on the Goldstone Report
    • blocking anti-Israel UN resolutions concerning the Gaza flotilla raid
    • defeating international resolutions aimed at exposing Israel’s nuclear program at the International Atomic Energy Agency
    • strengthening pressure on Iran and Syria in regards to their nuclear and proliferation activities. Continue reading