Rick Perry: Israel Foreign Aid Starts 'At Zero' [UPDATED]

Rick Perry called for a radical new approach to American foreign aid spending in the GOP debate Saturday night, proposing that all aid be reduced "to zero," and then be re-implemented only once the country made a good case for their aid. Asked later in the night if he included Israel in that plan, Perry said he did.

"Obviously Israel is a special ally, and my guess is we would be funding them at a high level," Perry said, "but everyone should come in at zero."

It wasn't quite calling for the end of foreign aid to Israel -- Perry was quite clear he supported it -- but the tricky question demonstrated the difficulty of the proposition he made earlier in the night.

Perry had been speaking about cutting aid across the board to zero during a conversation about Pakistan at the beginning of the debate.

"Pakistan is clearly sending us messages that they don't deserve our foreign aid because they're not being honest with us," he said. It was unclear what exact mechanism would be put in place to permit foreign nations to make their pitch for the necessity of American foreign aid.

The U.S. gives about $50 billion of foreign military and political aid per year, including about $3 billion to Israel alone.

Even before the debate was over, Perry's official Twitter account began doing limited damage control, tweeting, "Perry is a friend to Israel, understands challenges faced by the country along with a link to Perry's position statement on Israel."

In an earlier debate, both Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain had pushed back against a suggestion by Ron Paul that foreign aid -- including that to Israel -- ought to be re-evaluated in light of America's spending priorities.

UPDATE: 10:30 p.m.

A spokesman for Mitt Romney, who said during the debate that he supported Perry's idea of starting all foreign aid at zero, has now walked back the implication that Romney would include Israel in that calculation.

"Governor Romney was talking about Pakistan when he said the foreign aid each year should start at zero," Romney spokesman Ryan Williams told Politico's Ben Smith. He added that he did not believe that Israel should see their foreign aid reduced to a starting point of zero.

Comments

[Greg Mirsky]

09:05 PM on 11/15/2011

Everything, including foreign aid requires periodic re-evaluation. Yes, this is not the matter to be decided by direct public vote but clearly issue to be for discussion during upcoming election campaign. What are proprieties of American foreign policy and how well foreign aid aligned with changing international landscape. E.g. British parliament reviewed contributions to international, UN in particular, programs and reviews foreign aid routinely. Making similar process part of US foreign policies does make sense. E.g. how helpful to American interests was $2B commitment after fall of President Mubarak? Where these funds will come from?

[cosmiczulu]

08:17 PM on 11/15/2011

Israel doesn't need foreign aid, it receives credits to purchase US products

[Vlady]

03:25 PM on 11/15/2011

US's aid to Israel is predominantly military. It's of US national interest, first of all, to maintain Israeli, the only loyal ally in the ME, qualitative military edge against its peace-loving neighbors, so relieving US own military from their mission of stabilizing this tumultuous region

[Robson]

09:03 AM on 11/15/2011

Jack Garbuz stated "As for Israel's nukes, it developed them because the US would not give Israel a defense treaty in 1953 similar to the one it gave Gemany and Japan and NATO, Australia, New Zealand. So without a treaty promising US protection­, ISrael had to develop its own nuclear deterrent."

Perhaps then the USA should make a binding defense treaty with all nations that do not currently have nukes including Iran, if the objective is to truly discourage proliferation. If they develop nukes a defense treaty is nullified and their defense is on their own.

[Jack Garbuz]

11:10 AM on 11/15/2011

The US guarantees the 27 members of NATO, and ANZUS (Australia/New Zealand) and Japan through treaty. The Soviet Union has an umbrella over the former states of the USSR and the former communist bloc. Since 1969 there has been the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) where signatories give up the right to make nuclear weapon, in exchange for which they are allowed to purchase nuclear reactors and nuclear materiels from other countries. Those who did not sign the treaty, such as Israel, India and Pakistan are not allowed to be sold nuclear reactors or nuclear materiel. They have to develop and build everything themselves indigenously.

As for the US making treaties with everybody, it is hardly likely that American are willing to abide the treaties they've already signed. Most Americans want to go back to isolationism and retreat into "fortress America." But sure, if a treaty between the US and Iran will keep Iran from developing nukes, then please go ahead and make such a treaty, if Iran is willing.,ISrael won't have any problems with that, as long as it keeps Iran from developing bombs.

[Haroldpom]

05:40 PM on 11/14/2011

I think Saudi Arabia can fund all Muslim states with money previously supplied by the US. They get enough money from oil to do this quite easily. I don't see why the US has to. Perhaps they will cut back on their funding of mosques, middle eastern study programs in US universities and radical Islamist groups around the world.

[Jack Garbuz]

06:28 PM on 11/14/2011

America totally enriched the Arabs, and increased their numbers 20 fold since WWI mainly thanks to our addiction to oil. In 1919 there were only 22 million Arabs in the whole Middle East. Today the number is close to 400 million! Half their kids used to die close to childbirth. In Arabia, the population used to eat locusts and lived in total squalor. Now every punk autocrat and dictator has a golden palace 4 times the size of the White House, and all of that came from selling the West oil. The oil that Britain, the US and France discovered and developed after WWI and WWII.

[Lorili Lee]

03:48 PM on 11/14/2011

Perry's IQ starts at zero. Pretty much stays there.

[ussuri]

03:13 PM on 11/14/2011

public funding of election will eliminate AIPAC money .

then we can have government that represents us, not foreign interests.

[h111aryc1inton]

08:29 AM on 11/15/2011

Public funding is a great idea - but before you throw AIPAC into the mix you should do a little research - just a little: AIPAC is not a political action committee, and does not directly donate to campaign contributions.

That is not to say AIPAC doesn't lobby or report on which politicians vote according to what AIPAC finds important - but it does not donate money to any campaigns.

Nice try though...

[Robson]

09:09 AM on 11/15/2011

But public funding would take power from AIPAC and others by removing the money from the elections that they influence.

Common sense should dictate that no lobby with foreign interests should be permitted to influence our Congress.

[mommamia526]

08:37 PM on 11/15/2011

It will also eliminate other lobbyists. Not a bad idea. Are you willing to pay for it? I am also all for limiting the speeches circuits and having that on as a *program* on the tube. To tell you the truth, I would not be a verse to omitting advertising altogether cfrom the tube, the internet, etc. It is NOT going to happen. In today's world there are many other interests, international politics, and business interests, that will prevent that. What we could do is not watch the tube, not ready anything, especially not on the internet, refuse to buy from large corporations. It will be a very long haul with no end in sight.

[hamsteronwheel]

03:01 PM on 11/14/2011

we are all hamsters on neocon "financially engineered" and "financially innovated" wheels

2/2/10

"Israel's hawkish Defense Minister -- and most highly decorated soldier -- agrees.

Speaking at a conference outside Tel Aviv, Barak said, if "millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/ehud-barak-calls-endless_b_446411.html

10:27 AM 9/16/2011

we are all hamsters on neocon "financially engineered" and "financially innovated" wheels

killing Rachel Corrie, killing American and international aid workers in international waters, hit squads in other countries posing with falsified passports, killing a 65 year old man sleeping in his bed, a normal day at the Offensive idf. israel acts with wanton impunity. or ask goldman sachs and jamie dimon about doing god's work that caused our current 2nd Great Depression leaving them sitting on Trillions in cash they furiously invest in China and funnel through Ireland and the Caymans to avoid US taxes while dimon tells us "If you are an investor in municipals you should be very, very careful," Dimon said, according to Bloomberg." he doesn't care about the US cities he declares will go bankrupt, he cares about his personal profits, and power, which is why he had his lackey, bill daley appointed Obama's chief of staff.

these neocon banksters are global financial terrorists!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/municipal-debt_n_807977.html

[mommamia526]

08:49 PM on 11/15/2011

Man, a novel in five episodes, and more to follow, all to discuss the fact that no one in *Palestine* is allowed to vote, be it Palestine in Lebanon, Palestine in Syria, Palestine in Jordan, Palestine in the territories, or Palestine in Gaza.

So, Barak noted that the Palestinian Leadership is creating an Apartheid State? It may well be one of the reasons there IS no State at all. That, and not meeting a number of other requirements. But, that is just my observation. And I read on the Internet. So, check it out, did any Palestinian get to vote lately? Was Abbas elected?Is it right and proper that Palestinians have representatives they did not elect, and...who are not Palestinians?

I talked to a Palestinian the other day, and he had no answers. He was lost. Did not know where his country was, and why Mr. Abbas had become a Jordanian, and two of the four *leaders* of Hamas in Gaza are Syrians. I am starting to et lost in that web as well.

Now, if you only would run by me, again, WHY Rachel Corrie decided to lay down b efore a riding bulldozer, and what that has to do with Palestinians not being allowed to vote, that would help me greatly. I miss the connection.

[tbone99]

02:54 PM on 11/14/2011

Israel is hardly a third world country that needs our help - their citizens enjoy national healthcare while we go without.They mostly use our aid to buy our politicians

[h111aryc1inton]

08:32 AM on 11/15/2011

Actually they use our aid to buy military weapons from us - so that they are able to keep pace with the other countries in that region that we supply arms to.

But the "buying" our politicians thing sounding really good - nice try...

[tbone99]

04:41 PM on 11/15/2011

The organized lobby, meaning AIPAC and the several formal Jewish American organizations, truly came into its own during the Reagan years with a massive expansion of memberships, budgets, propaganda activities, and contacts within Congress and government, and it has been consolidating power and influence for the last quarter century, so that today the broadly defined lobby, including all those who work for Israel, has become an integral part of U.S. society and U.S. policymaking.

[cosmiczulu]

08:21 PM on 11/15/2011

AIPAC is not Israeli and Israel does not use money in negotiating with the US.

[darrtown]

02:47 PM on 11/14/2011

Zero money for Israel? I wonder what Glenn Beck will have to say about this considering his past stance on Israel.! Could it be he will dump on a republican?

[Donell Wickett]

01:49 PM on 11/14/2011

It is disgusting that pandering to Israel is so widespread by our politicians. Watching the imbeciles in congress argue tooth and nail about extending unemployment insurance payments for months holding the country hostage in the process, then turning around and combining for a full chamber standing ovation for the PM of Israel made me sick to my stomach.

[tbone99]

03:07 PM on 11/14/2011

United Jewish Appeal/Jewish Agency. American Jews give about $550 million a year to the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), which then turns the money over to the Jewish Agency in Israel. At that point, diaspora Jews lose virtually all say over how their money is spent. Donors tend to think of their UJA donations as charity, but that's not the case. Israel is not a poor country and not in need of charity. Per capita income now reaches $16,000, making Israelis only slightly less prosperous than the average Western European.
With a gross domestic product at $65 billion, the country could--if managed properly--pay all its bills, even its high defense tab, without foreign donations. Nor does the UJA money help Israel's poor. Israel has an extensive welfare program that provides adequately for its poor (a subject rarely discussed in fundraising circles for fear of jeopardizing the whole effort), and the Jewish Agency gives out none of its funds as welfare. Rather, it uses these to support educational programs, new settlements, religious institutions, and the absorption of new immigrants.

Israel no no longer needs aid , they have the Madoffs in finance throwing them money. - all The U,.S is doing is financing more settlements, displacing more Palestinians , and ensuring Israel buys arms from our MIC (more corporate welfare , in other words.)

[Haroldpom]

05:45 PM on 11/14/2011

Israel doesn't get aid. It get weapons to defend itself from Arabs states that seek to destroy them. The Arab states also get weapons to defend themselves against their enemies but will probably use them against Israel. Hardly makes any sense. So let's continue arming the Israelis for their defense of their country and cut the aid to the Arabs who just want to destroy Israel. Savings of at least 3 billion annually.

[Jack Garbuz]

06:36 PM on 11/14/2011

Yes, American Jews and pro-Israeli people give the Jewish AGency about a half a billion dollars a year, but that is peanuts compared to the amount of money sent by Mexican Americans to Mexico. And per capita income today in Israel is close to $30,000 a year versus $50,000 in the US, but the average Israel pays much higher taxes so the after tax take-home is about 56% what an American takes home. Your figures are really old, because Israel's GDP is over $200 billion a year, and US aid is only about 1.5% of Israel's GDP.But the combined GDP of Israel's enemies is at least ten times that of Israel, over $2.5 trillion a year. And the population of its enemies is almost 100 times that of Israel. Nonetheless, Israel does not need US provided that the US cuts off aid and arms sales to Israel's enemies as well.

[mommamia526]

09:06 PM on 11/15/2011

sorry about your ailment. Did you see a doctor? What does an ovation for a foreign diognitary have to do with your healthcare insurance? IF your representative had shown Mr. Netanyahu his neckhair, and if he had walked out upon Mr. N's entrance, would you then have received healthcare benefits? Please, explain. By the way, do NOT take two aspirins, but do see your doctor in the morning.

[Donell Wickett]

08:09 AM on 11/16/2011

Does living on the right impair your reading skills? I never said anything about health insurance, I said UNEMPLOYMENT insurance. Yes it is disgusting that members of congress cant agree to help it's citizens who are out of work through no fault of their own, but can agree 100% that israel should receive help.

[Anya Khan]

01:45 PM on 11/14/2011

Totally pandering to the clueless with no possible way of happening in the real world.

[kiksadi50]

01:39 PM on 11/14/2011

why is Israel a sacred cow? why does every politician tip toe around the topic of israel? why should they auto.get aid & every other country get evaluated differently?when did a person's stance on Israel become the litmus test for 'real Americans'?I am not for or against Israel or Palestinians.Does that make me a 'fake American"?No. It makes me a believer in democracy.

[tbone99]

03:09 PM on 11/14/2011

"why does every politician tip toe around the topic of israel? "

jewish campaign donations and fear of being labeled anti semite

[Haroldpom]

05:46 PM on 11/14/2011

No. Israel's enemies are our enemies. Israel can fight them in the ME or we are going to have to fight them over here. Perhaps both.

[Aryeh Melaris]

11:04 AM on 11/14/2011

Does anyone else realize that we give money to countries so that we can tell them what to do more or less? I think that all government bribery money ought to stop simply because it is a luxury that we can no longer afford.

[Donell Wickett]

01:50 PM on 11/14/2011

That's the funny thing, we give money to Israel and they tell us what to do.

[Haroldpom]

05:49 PM on 11/14/2011

I don't think so. Israel has been pandering to the US and the EU for years. They just want Israel to give the Palestinians everything they want and maybe the Palestinians will go away. Israel knows they won't so they are now saying no to their demands. A peace agreement is not a suicide pact.

[Robson]

09:49 PM on 11/14/2011

They refuse to tell us their intentions regarding an attack on Iran, even though said attack will destroy the USA and world economy because of food and energy prices will rise astronomically. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8886543/Israel-refuses-to-tell-US-its-Iran-intentions.html

If Israel goes off half cocked and attacks Iran and creates a situation that destroys our economy, Israel should be moved from ally to enemy or to terrorist nation.

[schrodster]

10:51 AM on 11/14/2011

Doesn't matter much where you start at but where you end up.