President Trump announced earlier this week that he plans on ending military aid to Israel. The U.S. has provided this financing to Israel since the early 1970s. According to the Congressional Research Service, this funding has accounted for more than 10 percent of Israel's independent defense budget over the years (see below).
I have long been an ardent supporter of Israel and support its right to self-defense. On Libertarian Jew, I have defended Israel against such slander as apartheid, genocide, occupation, being a settler colonizer, turning Gaza into an "open-air prison," and causing food shortages in Gaza. So it may surprise you that I support ending U.S. military aid to Israel. It's not because I want to see Israel weakened or the United States to abandon one of its closest allies. It is because such an act would benefit both Israel and the United States alike.
Uncle Sam Has Enough Bills Already
One of my arguments in favor is fiscal. The total U.S. national debt exceeds $40 trillion. With annual deficits in the trillions, Washington needs to scrutinize every dollar in order to improve its fiscal state of affairs and not become like Argentina or like Greece. With average annual aid to Israel being at $3.8 billion, cutting this aid will not solve the U.S.' fiscal woes. But that doesn't mean that smaller amounts escape criticism or scrutiny.
Even if Israel were in a more precarious economic and military position when this military assistance began in the early 1970s, that never made Israel's defense America's responsibility. There is a fundamental difference between having an interest in another country's security and paying for said security. Being a friend or ally does not entitle a country to financial assistance from the United States. If Israel needs additional resources, it should find a way to fund its own defense, much like any other sovereign nation.
The argument for continuing this arrangement is even weaker than it was in the 1970s. Israel is a prosperous and technologically advanced country with a sophisticated defense industry and has vast military capabilities. There is no compelling reason that the U.S. should be footing the bill. Ending this aid is an acknowledgment that a country as capable as Israel can afford to defend itself.
Let Israel's Strategic Interests Drive Its Military, Not Subsidies
There is also a strategic benefit to Israel in ending this financial dependence. Like with any other form of aid, it comes with purse strings. When America wants Israel to comply in a certain way, it pulls those strings in attempts to get Israel to comply, particularly when it comes to Israel's military operations and broader security policy. Without those strings being pulled, Israel can better determine its military and security decisions based on what is best for Israel rather than Washington's preferences. A country that has to defend itself from the Palestinian threat on its borders should not be held back by American political pressure.
The military aid to Israel is also bad for Israel because, like with all subsidies, there are distortive effects. In the case of this military aid, the money spent must largely be spent on U.S. military equipment. This can distort Israel's procurement decisions because it spends on U.S. products instead of what represents the best value for Israel. That best value could be purchasing from other countries or further developing its own domestic capabilities. If anything, this money could have very well blunted Israel's incentives to focus more on its domestic defense industry, which is an argument that Israel's Institute for National Security Studies has made. Removing this aid could begin a new era in Israel's domestic defense industry.
A Little Less Money, A Lot Less Baggage, A Stronger Alliance
Ending military aid could actually strengthen the American-Israeli relationship. Financial arrangements between friends can complicate relationships, as well as create expectations, obligations, and resentment. Personally, I generally avoid mixing money and friendship for that reason, and I don't think countries are immune to those dynamics. Without American subsidies, Washington would have less financial leverage over Israeli policy. Israel would subsequently have fewer reasons to feel that American support comes with strings attached.
This could also create benefits politically in the United States. Critics point to this military aid as evidence that American taxpayers are funding Israeli military operations. Ending aid would also help Israel in this regard because having bipartisan support from your most powerful ally is better than the Far Left creating a wedge for Israeli support in the U.S., which has been declining since the October 7 attacks and the subsequent war in Gaza. Israel's critics in the U.S. will always concoct reasons to criticize Israel because that's Israel Derangement Syndrome for you. But removing this specific form of controversy can help with bipartisan support, particularly among Americans who support nations to defend themselves but also oppose foreign military subsidies. This would allow the U.S. and Israel to have shared strategic interests and values instead of being distracted by U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Conclusion
None of this means that the United States is ending its strategic relationship with Israel. If anything there can continue to be intelligence sharing, diplomatic cooperation, joint military research, and arms sales. But there is zero reason why American taxpayers should have to subsidize that relationship. Ending the subsidies does not mean ending the relationship. It means allowing the alliance to stand on its own merits and not have financial obligations muddy it all up. I want Israel to remain strong, prosperous, and secure. I also want the United States to support Israel without having to finance its defense spending. After all, the best friendship is that in which neither needs the other's money.
No comments:
Post a Comment