The True Cost
of Israel
U.S. support goes far beyond the official numbers.
By PHILIP GIRALDI • April 12, 2017 theamericanconservative.com
The American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) concluded its annual conference late last month, triggering
the usual debate in various alternative media outlets. Why does so much U.S.
taxpayer money go to a small and not particularly useful client state that has
a vibrant European-level economy and is already a regional military colossus?
Those
who support the cash flow argue that Israel is threatened, most notably by
Iran; they claim the assistance, which has been largely but not completely used
to buy American-made weapons, is required to maintain a qualitative edge over
the country’s potential enemies. Those who oppose the aid would counter that
the Iranian threat is largely an Israeli and Saudi Arabian invention, used to
justify continued American support for the national-security policies of both
countries. And they would add that Tel Aviv is more than able to defend itself
and pay for its own military establishment.
In
truth, American aid to Israel is something like a pot of gold that keeps on
giving. Both sides in the discussion would probably agree that the domestic
Israel Lobby has been instrumental in sustaining the high level of aid, though
they would undoubtedly disagree over whether that is a good or bad thing. The
operation of “The Lobby,” generally regarded as the most powerful voice on
foreign policy in Washington, led Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer
to ask,
“Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security … in order to
advance the interests of another state? [No] explanation can account for the
remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the U.S. provides.”
They observed that “Other special interest groups have managed to skew foreign
policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest
would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests
and those of the other country—in this case, Israel—are essentially identical.”
Since
the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948, it has been “the largest cumulative recipient of
U.S. foreign assistance since World War II,” according to the
Congressional Research Service. The United States has provided Israel with
$233.7 billion in adjusted for inflation aid between 1948 through the end of
2012, reports Haaretz.
Current discussions center on the Obama administration’s memo of understanding
with Israel that promised it $38 billion in military assistance over the next
10 years, a considerable sum but nevertheless a total that is far less than
what is actually received annually from the United States Treasury and from
other American sources.
Senator
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), speaking in the most recent legislative discussion
over Israeli aid, stated that the $38 billion should be regarded as
a floor, and that Congress should approve additional funds for Israeli defense
as needed. It has, in fact, done so. At its most recent meeting, AIPAC announced the
latest windfall from America, applauding “the U.S. House of Representatives for
significantly bolstering its support of U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation
in the FY 2017 defense appropriations bill. The House appropriated $600.7
million for U.S.-Israel missile defense programs.” And there is a long history
of such special funding for Israeli-connected projects. The Iron Dome
missile-defense system was largely funded by the United States, to the tune of more than $1
billion. In the 1980s, the Israeli Lavi jet-fighter development
program was funded by
Washington, costing $2 billion to the U.S. taxpayer before it was
terminated over technical and other problems, part of $5.45 billion in Pentagon funding of various Israeli weapons projects
through 2002.
The
admittedly unreliable former Congressman James Traficant once claimed that “Israel gets $15 billion per year
from the American taxpayers.” Indeed, how Israel gets money from the United
States is actually quite complex and not very transparent to the American
public, going well beyond the check for $3.8 billion handed over at the
beginning of the fiscal year on October 1. Even that check, uniquely given to
aid recipient Israel as one lump sum on the first day of the year, is manipulated
to produce extra revenue. It is normally immediately redeposited with the U.S.
Treasury, which then, because it operates on a deficit, borrows the money to
pay interest on it as the Israelis draw it down. That interest payment costs the American taxpayer an
estimated $100 million more per
year. Israel has also been adept at using “loan guarantees,” an issue that may have
contributed to the
downfall of President George H.W. Bush. The reality is that the loans, totaling $42 billion, are never repaid by Israel, meaning that the
United States Treasury picks up the tab on principle and interest, a form of
additional assistance. The Bush-era loan amounted to $10
billion.
Department
of Defense co-production projects, preferential contracting, “scrapping” or
“surplusing” of usable equipment that is then turned over to the Israel Defense
Forces (IDF), as well as the forward deployment of military hardware to an
Israeli-run base in Israel (used to support local military operations), are considerable benefits to Tel Aviv’s bottom line. Much of
this assistance is hidden from view.
In
1992, AIPAC President James Steiner bragged how he “got almost a billion dollars
in other goodies [in negotiations with Secretary of State Jim Baker] that
people don’t even know about.” In September 2012, Israel’s former
commander-in-chief, Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, admitted at a
conference that
between 2009 and 2012 American taxpayers had paid for more of his country’s
defense budget than had Israeli taxpayers. Those numbers have been
disputed, but the fact remains that a considerable portion of the
Israeli military spending comes from the United States. It currently is
more than 20 percent
of the total $16 billion budget, not counting special appropriations.
Through
tax exemptions, the U.S. government also subsidizes the coordinated effort to
provide additional assistance to Israel. No other lobbying effort to promote
the interests of a foreign country benefits in like fashion, and, indeed, most
similar groups are required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration
Act of 1938, as former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has learned to
his chagrin regarding Turkey.
Most
organizations and foundations that might reasonably be considered active parts
of the Israel Lobby are generally registered with the Department of the
Treasury as 501(c)3 tax-exempt educational foundations. Grant Smith, speaking at a
conference on the U.S. and Israel on
March 24, explained how the broader Israel Lobby uses this legal framework:
Key U.S. organizations include the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the American Jewish Committee
(AJC), the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and the Anti-Defamation League
(ADL). Hundreds more, including a small number of evangelical Christian
organizations, play a role within a vast ecosystem that demands unconditional
U.S. support for Israel. In the year 2012 the nonprofit wing of the Israel
lobby raised $3.7 billion in revenue. They are on track to reach $6.3 billion
by 2020. Collectively they employed 14,000 and claimed 350,000 volunteers.
The
$3.7 billion raised in 2012 was largely tax exempt and it does not include the
billions in private donations that go directly to Israel, as well as the
billions in contributions that are regarded as covered by “religious
exemptions” for groups that don’t file at all. There are also contributions
sent straight to various Israeli-based foundations that are themselves often
registered as charities. The
Forward magazine investigated 3,600 Jewish
tax-exempt charitable foundations in
2014 and determined that they had net assets of $26 billion, $12–14 billion in
annual revenue, and “focuse[d] the largest share of [their] donor dollars on
Israel.” That share amounted to 38 percent of total income. The Forward adds that it is “an apparatus that
benefits massively from the U.S. federal government and many state and local
governments, in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars in government
grants, billions in tax-deductible donations and billions more in program fees
paid for with government funds.”
Some
pro-Israel foundations are in-your-face about their goals. The Friends of the Israel Defense
Forces, which “Support[s] the wellbeing and education needs of Israel’s
brave soldiers,” is a registered tax-exempt
charity that conducts
fundraisers throughout the United States. Money being fungible, some American
Jews have been surprised to
learn that the
donations that they had presumed were going to what they regard as charitable
causes in Israel have instead wound up in expanding the illegal settlements on
the West Bank, an objective that they might not support. It was recently
reported that Donald
Trump’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner has a family foundation that has
made donations to Israel, including funding of West Bank settlements, which is
illegal under U.S. law.
Israel
also benefits in other ways, frequently due to legislative action by Congress.
It enjoys free and even preferential trade status with the United States and
runs a $9 billion trade
surplus per annum.
Its companies and parastatal organizations can, without any restrictions, bid
on U.S. defense and homeland-security projects—a privilege normally only
granted to NATO partners—which has given it dominance in some U.S.
law-enforcement, telecommunications, and travel-security sectors. Its
involvement in the development and use of classified military technologies
developed by U.S. arms producers has sometimes led to claims that Israel has
adopted and adapted—or even stolen—proprietary
information and then
used it to develop its own arms industry, which is now ranked sixth in the
world by volume of
sales. Ironically, U.S. taxpayers have subsidized an Israeli industry that then
competes directly with American companies, producing a loss of jobs in the United
States.
There
has also been considerable collateral damage derived from the relationship with
Israel, including the Arab Oil embargo and possibly even some blame for the
ruinous cost of Iraq, which many believe to have been fought in part for
Israel. But even without that war, the U.S.-Israeli bilateral relationship has
been an expensive proposition for Americans. Whether Israel is a strategic
liability or not, or whether its complicated geostrategic situation merits
virtually unquestioning support from the United States, the reality is that it
has a lopsided relationship with Washington. This has long been and continues
to be largely paid for by the United States taxpayer, who is not as well off as
he once was.
The
U.S.-Israel relationship is yet another
instance where the
perceived needs of an American “ally” take precedence over genuine national
interests. Tens of billions of dollars need not necessarily be spent to placate
a wealthy foreign country and its powerful domestic lobby. Indeed, other
options to employ the money closer to home—in the form of schools, highways,
and hospitals—may become increasingly attractive to American voters.
Philip
Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the
National Interest.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario