Congress quietly moves to integrate US and Israeli militaries
In the first step towards shifting aid further into
the shadows, the House's 2027 NDAA would all but fuse the two countries' armed
forces together
May 29, 2026
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-us-military/
At a time when the American public is expressing
unprecedented levels of distrust in the Israeli government, Congress just
proposed tying the U.S. to the Israeli military more than ever before.
Buried in the House's version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) released on Tuesday, is section 224, entitled “United States-Israel
Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” The provision would arguably do
more to intertwine the U.S. military with the Israeli military than the more
than $200 billion (inflation adjusted) in military assistance Israel has received from the U.S. since its founding in
1948.
Section 224 lays the groundwork for bilateral research
and development, co-production of weapons, joint ventures, licensing
agreements, and seemingly every manner of U.S.-Israeli military-industrial
complex cooperation. The U.S. and Israel already work together heavily on
missile defense, but this provision would greatly expand coordination to
seemingly every area of defense tech, including AI, quantum, autonomous
systems, directed energy, cyber, biotech, and many more. It also proposes
“network integration” and “data fusion.” In other words, the U.S. military’s
data could soon be the Israeli military’s data.
If fully enacted, this proposal would provide a higher
level of military-industrial integration than the U.S. has with any other
country in the world. To be sure, the U.S. has worked closely with its NATO
partners on co-production and shared supply chains, most notably via the Defence
Production Action Plan. And,
as the number one arms dealer in the world, the U.S. provides weapons to
militaries across the globe. But that is mostly a one-way street, with the U.S.
providing weapons to foreign buyers who only occasionally make parts for those
weapons themselves, as in the case of the F-35’s global supply chain.
Section 224 would be a different beast entirely. It
would fuse the U.S. and Israeli defense sectors in multiple areas vital to the
battlefields of the future, like autonomous systems and cyber. It would also
bring extraordinary Israeli influence to the U.S. beyond what it already has
through the Israel lobby and its robust network of social media influencers. It would give the Israeli government the opportunity
to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in U.S.
politics: jobs in the U.S. By expanding or starting new co-production
facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs
on U.S. soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent
the districts where those jobs lie.
The result could well be a U.S. political system even
more susceptible to the whims of an Israeli government that seemingly has no
qualms about drawing the U.S. into military conflicts in the Middle East.
This unprecedented level of U.S.-Israeli military
integration stands in stark contrast to the traditional aid model of defense
cooperation, in which Israel already stood out as the top recipient of U.S.
military assistance. As laid out in a recent Quincy Institute brief, authored by Steven Simon, this shift from an aid
model to a military integration model has troubling implications, namely:
The shift will strip away the political and diplomatic
oversight mechanisms that make the relationship publicly accountable, moving it
from a visible annual aid vote into the opaque machinery of defense
acquisition, where oversight is limited and political accountability is
minimal. The result would be a defense relationship that is simultaneously
deeper and less transparent.
This all comes at a time when the Israeli military
has repeatedly used U.S. weapons in strikes that have violated international
humanitarian laws in Gaza, and as Israel has repeatedly violated ceasefires (as has the U.S. itself) in the Trump
administration’s unnecessary war with Iran.
The enormous gulf between what most Americans want and
what the president is doing when it comes to Israel and what Congress is
proposing here should not be ignored. Just 30% of respondents to a New York
Times/Sienna poll from mid-May believe Trump made “the right
decision” to go to war with Iran, with 64% saying it was wrong. An Institute
for Global Affairs poll released earlier this week dove even deeper into
the American psyche when it comes to arming Israel, finding that “Just 16
percent say the United States should keep supplying Israel with weapons without
new restrictions. Thirty-eight percent want to stop supplying weapons entirely,
and another 24 percent want weapons conditioned on how they’re used.”
Yet, mainstream leadership in both parties remains
largely pro-Israel and continues to shape the base legislative text before
amendments and broader congressional debate open it to the full body, as is the
case with this NDAA provision.
Though slowly, tides within both parties are shifting
as more and more members speak out against the growing divide between Israel’s
actions and America’s interests. For example, Sen. Chris Van Hollen
(D-Md.) wrote in The New York Times on Tuesday that, “The
Democratic Party has provided reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli
governments, even as their actions have increasingly undermined American
interests and values.” On the Republican side of the aisle, Rep. Thomas Massie
(R-Ky.) and former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-Ga.) have openly decried the
Israel lobby’s corrosive influence — a stance that may have, at least
partially, cost both of them their seats in Congress.
What can other members of Congress who are concerned
about Israel’s destabilizing actions do right now? Stop the Israeli-U.S.
military-industrial merger in its tracks. Lawmakers should reject Section 224
from the NDAA to avoid deep integration with Israel's military at a time when a
growing number of Americans oppose Israel's actions in the region.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario