In the 60 years between 1949 and 2009, the United States provided more than $106bn in economic and military assistance to Israel, and it’s estimated that America will continue to give more than $3bn annually for at least the next 10 years.
That’s a lot of money to donate to a developed country with higher per-capita income levels than many EU member states. And at the same time, does Israel really need the money?
A 2005 briefing report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service for the US Congress says that “Israel is not economically self-sufficient, and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy.” This comes in the form of US foreign assistance, philanthropy, commercial loans and Israel Bonds proceeds that amount to $6bn a year!
This briefing report also notes some of the other benefits America provides for Israel, which are difficult to quantify but are nonetheless financially lucrative for the Israeli government. These include “loans with repayment waived, or a pledge to provide Israel with economic assistance equal to the amount Israel owes the US.” Loans that I don’t have to repay? I can always get new loans from you equal to what I owe you? Wow! Wouldn’t you like to get loan terms like this from your bank? I know I sure would.
Maybe I’m wrong to think this way, but given Israel’s historic and ongoing dependence on American financial aid, I think this is an area where President Obama could have some influence – if he is able. It’s an open question because Israel has two wealthy and politically connected lobbying groups that work to advance Israeli interests in the US. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) directly lobbies Congress, while the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations lobbies both the President and Congress on behalf of Jews living in the US, Israel and the rest of the world.
But both of these groups are also under increasing pressure from some of their members to put an end to their slavish support of whatever Israel’s positions happen to be, until Israel demonstrates an urgency to reach a peace agreement.
Recognising that there are practical limits to US economic, military and political power, President Obama abandoned the previous administration’s unilateral approach in favour of a multilateral diplomacy in countering al-Qaeda-inspired Islamic terrorism. But he also knew that repairing America’s image in the Muslim world require quiet diplomacy and patience judging the progress of his geo-political initiatives.
Chief among these was a new diplomatic push to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Obama put George Mitchell in charge of the Middle East peace negotiations because of his previous success in Northern Ireland. Obama knew that getting both sides to agree to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be very difficult, particularly since the Palestinian cause has helped generate “lethal levels of anti-Americanism”, in the words of former US Middle East adviser Aaron Miller.
That’s why it’s essential for President Obama to find a way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if he wants to dry up a significant source of anti-American terrorism – the Islamic world’s frustration with US support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians.
I believe the best way to achieve this is by putting pressure on Israel, by conditioning America’s financial support on a the prohibition of building new settlements. Only then would President Obama show he’s willing and able to transform America’s angry words into actions.
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU
