For the first time in memory, if not ever, a highly respected mainstream columnist is calling on the United States to cut aid to Israel.
Writing in the Washington Post, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and columnist Walter Pincus says "it is time to examine the funding the United States provides to Israel."
Aid to Israel is virtually the only program, domestic or foreign, that is exempt from every budget cutting proposal pending in Congress. No matter that our own military is facing major cuts along with Medicare, cancer research and hundreds of other programs, Israel's friends in Congress in both parties make sure that aid to Israel is protected at current levels.
Back when I was a Congressional staffer, I was part of the process by which aid to Israel was secured. Every member of the Congressional Appropriations Committees sent a "wish list" to the chairman of the committee telling him or her which programs he wanted funded and by what amounts. Each letter reflected the particular interest of a particular Representative or Senator and of his own district or state.
There was always one exception: aid to Israel, which apparently is a local issue for every legislator. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) would provide the list of Israel's aid requirements for the coming year and, with few if any exceptions, every letter would include the AIPAC language. Not a punctuation mark would be changed.
At the end of the process, the AIPAC wish list would become law of the land. (Woe to any Member of Congress who dared to resist the AIPAC juggernaut).
That is how it has been for decades and not even the current economic crisis is likely to change it. On this issue, Congress is hopeless and will remain so as long as its members rely so heavily on campaign contributions (PAC or individual) delivered by AIPAC.
In his column, Pincus describes just how absurd the Israel exemption is and that the aid to Israel package even includes an escalator clause, enshrined in law, to ensure that it can only go up, not down.
Look for a minute at the bizarre formula that has become an element of U.S.-Israel military aid, the so-called qualitative military edge (QME). Enshrined in congressional legislation, it requires certification that any proposed arms sale to any other country in the Middle East "will not adversely affect Israel's qualitative military edge over military threats to Israel."
In 2009 meetings with defense officials in Israel, Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher "reiterated the United States' strong commitment" to the formula and "expressed appreciation" for Israel's willingness to work with newly created "QME working groups," according to a cable of her meetings that was released by WikiLeaks.
The formula has an obvious problem. Because some neighboring countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are U.S. allies but also considered threats by Israel, arms provided to them automatically mean that better weapons must go to Israel. The result is a U.S.-generated arms race.
For example, the threat to both countries from Iran led the Saudis in 2010 to begin negotiations to purchase advanced F-15 fighters. In turn, Israel -- using $2.75 billion in American military assistance -- has been allowed to buy 20 of the new F-35 fifth-generation stealth fighters being developed by the United States and eight other nations.
Read the full article to get the benefit of Pincus' research on all the unique features of the Israel aid package -- including the fact that while we are increasing aid to Israel, Israel itself is cutting its military budget.
Something is terribly wrong here, most notably the fact that members of Congress from both parties are afraid to talk about it. After all, what would their constituents (not their donors) think about increasing foreign aid to Israel while we are cutting aid to education and health programs here?
Until Pincus wrote this column, there was no reason to think Congress would ever reconsider its priorities. They didn't publicize the inconsistency in their budget priorities and no one, other than AIPAC, was paying much attention.
That may have changed by one column by an intrepid reporter, writing in the staunchly pro-Netanyahu Washington Post and who also happens to be Jewish, immunizing him from the "anti-Semitism" charge hurled at anyone who questions U.S. policy toward Israel.
Maybe, just maybe, progressives (and maybe even conservatives) will now demand that their legislators tell them just why they apply the sledgehammer to programs that affect hurting Americans while falling all over themselves to continue to give billions to the Israeli government.
In 1982, Steve Rosen, (an AIPAC lobbyist subsequently indicted for espionage although the case was dropped), sent me the following memo. (I was employed by AIPAC at the time). It read:
A lobby is a night flower. It thrives in the dark. And withers in the daylight.
Thanks to Walter Pincus and the Washington Post for providing the daylight.
Note: This post has been updated from its original version.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Richard Stearns: Cutting Foreign Aid: Not The America I Love
Israel's economy is doing very well.
Israel has multiple billionaires and many millionaires. If Israel needs money get it from them instead of the US taxpayer.
Please sign up
http://www.getmoneyout.com/
SJ: "Their per capita is the same as the UK. They are a first world country who should fend for itself." (from your statement in response to mine below)
LOL. It seems the only consistent sentiment you express is that we should cut aid to Israel, with no need for supporting "facts" or "information" even to be consistent, much less correct.
We all heard your opinion now. No need to overtax yourself inventing new "facts" or arguments.
Shouldn't we free ourselves from these troublesome entities as well? After all, we get less from them than we do from Israel. Unless, of course, you're talking about unbridled contempt and hatred which we receive in abundance from them.
Yet an other expense of the costly and unbalanced US relationship with israel.
Compared to the $2.0 billion yearly military aid to Israel, the U.S. contributes more than $130 billion(!) every year to the defense of Europe and more than $30 billion to the defense of Japan, Korea, and the Far East. Over 300,000 U.S. troops are stationed with NATO and over 30,000 U.S. troops in the Far East. In contrast, not one single U.S. soldier needs to be stationed and put at risk in Israel. U.S. military analysts estimate that the U.S. would have to spend the equivalent of $150 billion a year in the Middle East to maintain a force equivalent to Israel’s.
Israel effectively secures NATO’s southeastern flank, without having a single American soldier stationed in its territory.
http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_02c.html
-- none of Israel's neighbors will facilitate overflight for military aircraft transiting Israeli territory, let alone taking off from there. Israel is useless for purposes of strategic logistics or power projection.
-- Israel is worse than irrelevant to the defense of Middle Eastern energy supplies; the US relationship with Israel has jeopardized these supplies (as in 1973), not contributed to securing them.
-- US relations with Israel do not bolster US prestige in Middle Eastern oil-producing countries or assist the US to "dominate" them, they complicate and weaken US influence; they have at times resulted in the suspension of US relations with such countries.
-- Israel does not have the diplomatic prestige or capacity to marshal support for US interests or policies globally or in its own region and does not do so; on the contrary, it
requires constant American defense against political condemnation and sanctions by the international communityIsrael does not fund aid programs in third countries to complement and support US foreign or military policy as other allies and strategic partners do.
The USA doles out over $50-billion per year in direct foreign aid and God knows how much in indirect aid, like for NATO, Afgh., etc... All in, Israel's share is probably far less then its 2.5% population in the USA. Not that 2.5% is any magic number but when the USA cuts off those far less worthy [Read: most everyone], including such false friends as Pakistan, then we can talk about chiseling down Israel's aid. Of course, most everyone who advocates cutting aid to Israel has few (if anyone) else on their 'radar screen'. Which is exactly the problem here. Most people who assert such positions are wanting to punish Israel, not get the USA back its taxpayer's funds.
So many people seem to have a problem with AIPAC but it what they really should have a problem with is the American political system. Fact is, there are many strong lobbies out there that use the same tactics as AIPAC and the like.
Just look at how strong Lawyers and big Pharma are in terms of their lobbies and suppressing issues such as tort reform and a cut in drug prices. These issues affect our lives each and every day. Yet why do we not hear any people clamoring for an end to these lobbies?
Were Israel to disappear tomorrow, the Iranian threat would still be there. The Taliban threat to Afghanistan would still be there.
There are ample reasons for anti-Americanism worldwide that are completely separate from U.S. support of Israel. Ask a child to explain it to you.
Al Queda, Hamas, and Hizbollah are a small portion of Middle East interests and are out to get Israel and the United States by ideology. They cannot be placated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/michael-oren-makes-the-case-for-the-us-israel-alliance/2011/03/29/AFNWYXqE_blog.html
Time to move out of the house & make your own way in the world.
In many ways, Israel is the giver and the U.S. is the receiver. Israel is like a start-up company that enjoys the kindness of the American investor, but yields much greater profits than the investment.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3084569,00.html
I have no quarrel with reducing or even eliminating aid to Israel. After all, that also would eliminate the restrictions we place on Israel's production and sales of their own defense products. But it only makes sense in this context also to eliminate the aid we send elsewhere, including to other ME states.
Sure, let in the daylight so it will illuminate ALL the dirty corners in the neighborhood.