Iftikhar Gilani
In Israel, a striking blend of Eastern tradition and Western modernity captures the eye amidst the pressures of a soaring cost of living. Families here, grappling with financial strains, often see both partners working full-time, a testament to their pursuit of a European standard amidst their Middle Eastern context.
Journeying from the bustling urbanity of Tel Aviv to the frontier community of Sderot, one notices the lush greenery – an anomaly in the arid landscape. This verdant facade, however, comes at a price.
To maintain such an environment and match the public services of wealthier European capitals, substantial resources are funnelled into preserving a high standard of living, conspicuously higher than that of its less affluent neighbours and Palestinians, who live just a wall across.
At the heart of Israel’s fiscal sustenance lies the considerable financial aid from the United States, a cornerstone of its annual budget that ensures these daily luxuries.
Yet, this long-standing assistance is increasingly controversial, sparking intense debates over its economic toll on American taxpayers and the ethical questions surrounding this external support.
USAID and Congressional Research Service reports indicate that Israel has received a staggering $297 billion from the US since 1946, far outstripping any other nation. By comparison, Egypt, the second largest recipient, has received $167 billion, while Palestine has received just over $11 billion since 1950.
US financial aid is not just a contribution, but a cornerstone of Israel’s financial strategy, accounting for around 3% of the total national budget and around 1% of GDP. With a share of 20% of the total defence budget and almost the entire procurement budget, this aid contributes significantly to strengthening the Israeli defence sector.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz emphasises that US support goes beyond financial aid and extends to important technologies and weapons systems such as the Iron Dome and Arrow missile defence systems.
Chuck Freilich, a former Belfer Communications Office executive, points to the strategic benefits Israel receives from American technology assistance, such as radar linked to the American global satellite system, which enhances Israel’s defence capabilities against long-range threats.
The recent confirmation of nearly $4 billion in annual military aid to Israel through 2028, including significant funding for missile defence and advanced weaponry, has reignited the debate about the need for and impact of such large-scale assistance. Total US aid to Israel for 2023 and early 2024, including regular and supplemental military aid, amounts to a whopping 18 billion dollars.
This aid package includes $5.2 billion for missiles and missile defence systems, $3.5 billion for advanced weapons, $1 billion for weapons production improvements and $4.4 billion for other defence equipment and services. In addition, $2.4 billion is earmarked to support US operations in the region during the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
In April 2023, the US House of Representatives passed a bill providing $17 billion in defence aid for Israel and approximately $2 billion for Gaza, including $3.8 billion in regular annual aid and $14.5 billion in supplemental aid.
Aid no longer justifiable
Critics such as Steven A. Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and former US ambassador Martin Indyk argue that Israel’s continued financial support may no longer be justifiable given its economic and military strength. They suggest that reducing dependence on aid could lead to a healthier bilateral relationship.
The CFR points out that the US provided substantial economic aid to Israel from 1971 to 2007. Under a 10-year agreement, the US has pledged to support Israel with nearly $4 billion annually until 2028, primarily through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programme.
This aid, approximately 3.3 billion dollars annually, must be used for the purchase of US military equipment and services. In the past, Israel has also been allowed to use a portion of its FMF aid to purchase equipment from Israeli defence companies, a unique advantage for Israel.
In addition, $500 million is earmarked annually for Israeli and joint US-Israeli missile defence programmes, including the Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow II systems.
American military assistance to any country is subject to strict US laws requiring Congressional notification and review of significant arms deals.
The President must notify Congress before selling major weapons systems or services worth more than a certain threshold and give lawmakers a review period.
For deals with Israel and other close US allies, the threshold for review is between $25 million and $300 million, depending on the type of defence equipment or services.
Congress can block a sale through a joint resolution, but this has never happened.
Critics argue that the US has not strictly applied the Leahy Law, which prohibits security assistance to foreign governments that commit gross human rights violations, to Israel.
Such was the brazenness of Israel that according to Josh Paul, who served as director of the State Department’s Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs for more than 11 years, when they questioned Tel Aviv on the rape of a 13-year-old Palestinian boy by Israeli forces and highlighted human rights abuses, they were snubbed.
“Our attention was drawn to a report of a charity, which had reported the rape of the boy. When we flagged the issue, the next day Israeli military raided the offices of charity, confiscated their computers, and declared it a terrorist entity,” he told CNN in an interview.
A cornerstone of US military assistance is to provide Israel with a qualitative military edge (QME) in the Middle East that ensures Israel’s ability to defeat any credible conventional military threat. This commitment, enshrined in US law in 2008, ensures that Israel is the first country in the region to have access to the most advanced US military weapons and platforms.
Growing concerns and unease
Nevertheless, there is growing national and international concern, particularly over Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip, which have resulted in numerous civilian casualties and a worsening humanitarian crisis.
While President Biden has reaffirmed Israel’s right to self-defence, he has also expressed concern about the conduct of the operations, particularly the indiscriminate bombing. This stance reflects a broader dilemma within the US administration, evidenced by the resignations of several officials who disagree with the current course of US-Israel relations.
Some Democratic lawmakers have sought to make US aid conditional on Israel’s commitment to limit civilian casualties.
Observers say that US-Israel relations have been strained by Netanyahu’s rhetoric and policies, including plans to curtail the powers of Israel’s Supreme Court and authorise more Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which critics say violate international law and undermine prospects for a future Palestinian state.
In addition, the recent resignations of US government officials, such as Josh Paul
Tariq Habash, Annelle Sheline, Hala Rharrit, Harrison Mann, Lily Greenberg Call and Stacy Gilbert indicate a growing unease among some American policymakers with the current course of US-Israel relations.
These resignations, which stem from concerns about human rights and the ethical implications of US aid, signal the urgent need for introspection and possibly a recalibration of policy.
In addition, the city of Hamtramck in the state of Michigan become the first to call for a complete boycott of Israel.
The resolution passed by the city council pledges not to purchase goods and services from companies affected by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. It also advises against investing in Israeli companies that support apartheid policies. Cities around the world such as Dublin and Barcelona have joined similar measures, indicating a growing international solidarity with Palestine.
As the US continues to play its role on the world stage, the strategic, ethical and financial implications of its aid to Israel continue to be a hotly debated topic. This discourse not only shapes foreign policy but also reflects broader questions about America’s role in promoting stability or discord on the international stage.
The future of US-Israel relations thus hangs in a delicate balance, influenced by evolving political dynamics, regional stability, and the shifting sands of international diplomacy.
There is a growing question now why do American taxpayers pay for the quality of life standard of Israeli citizens and their security? The geostrategic reality is that any country’s security is guaranteed in the long term if it lives in peace with its neighbours.
It is high time the US used its leverage to force Israel to make peace in the region and live like a normal country.
—–
Have you liked the news article?