Israel starts campaign to boost US military aid
UPI, Sep 27 2013
TEL AVIV – Israel’s military chiefs are pushing for a bump in the $3.1b/yr the ‘Jewish state’ receives in US military aid, even though the 10-year agreement doesn’t expire until 2017 and the US is struggling with domestic economic issues. Among other things, the Israelis are citing a 2008 US law that for the first time legally committed Washington to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) over its regional adversaries. The QME, the cornerstone of the strategic alliance between USrael for the past few decades, was long viewed as a negotiating principle between them but was made law under the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008. The act requires US military aid at all times ensures Israel is technologically capable of countering any array of hostile states and non-state combatants such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah. The $3.1b/yr in military aid is by far the largest single package of its kind provided by the US, but the Israelis argue a new set of security threats in the Middle East such as the Syrian civil war, the turmoil in Iraq and Egypt, and the increased danger from AQ now operating in Syria and Egypt justify an increase in foreign military finance (FMF) grants. Military analyst Nathan Guttman wrote in the Forward (see below – RB):
In preliminary talks now under way, Israel is pointing to, among other things, recent sales of advanced US weaponry to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Israel is laying out the principles it would like to see guide the next aid package. One will aim to put a dollar sum on the cost of maintaining Israel’s QME. This estimate will take into account what it will take to ensure that Israel’s armed forces are always one step ahead of their adversaries, or those Israel argues are adversaries, in the region. The second will be to include missile defense programs, currently funded through a separate Pentagon budget line, in the foreign aid program managed through the State Dept’s budget.
The Pentagon has provided $600m in the last two years to fund the development and production of several Israeli missile defense systems that have a major role in Israeli strategy to counter Iran’s growing ballistic missile arsenal and short-range weapons in the hands of Hezbollah and Palestinian groups. Syria, too, is seen as a potential missile threat. The Israeli systems include Israel Aerospace Industries’ Arrow anti-ballistic system, with the state-owned IAI and Boeing jointly developing Arrow-3, the most advanced variant of the system that’s designed to intercept long-range missiles outside Earth’s atmosphere. Raytheon has a similar program with Israel’s Rafael to develop David’s Sling, a lower-altitude weapon designed to counter mid-range missiles. US funds were also involved in the production of Rafael’s short-range Iron Dome anti-missile system. It’s been operational since early 2012 and has, by official tally, racked up an 85% kill rate against Palestinian rockets (bullshit, the thing is half useless – RB). The US has sold the Saudis new and upgraded Boeing F-15 combat jets, along with dozens of Boeing AH-64 Apache gunships and Sikorksy UH-60M Black Hawks. The UAE acquired Lockheed Martin’s THAAD air defense system, and some Boeing CH-47F Chinook transport helicopters. Egypt, Iraq and Oman received Lockheed F-16s. When the US unveiled these contracts, officials said Israel had been assured the sales would not undermine its QME. But outgoing Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren, noted:
The nexus between QME and FMF has become stronger. Very large contracts to the Middle East raise the question of armies having capabilities similar to our own and how we make sure we can maintain our QME.
Israel Pushes for Boost in US Aid to More Than $3B/Yr
Nathan Guttman, Forward, Sep 17 2013
Israel’s 10-year assistance agreement with the US doesn’t expire until 2017. But in Washington time, that’s not too far away for Israel to argue now for increasing aid levels when the agreement is renewed. Citing the ongoing instability in the Middle East, Israel is already pushing for an increase in US military aid to address new challenges and to ensure Israeli military superiority in the region. More specifically, in renewal talks that are ongoing between the two countries, Israel is pointing to, among other things, recent sales of advanced US weaponry to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Israeli officials point out that under a doctrine stemming from statutory language in earlier legislation, the US is committed by law to ensuring that Israel maintains a qualitative military edge (QME) over any of its Arab neighbors. The 2008 law, seen as mainly declarative at the time, could provide the legal basis for increasing aid to Israel in order to ensure its military edge. An Israeli official briefed on the discussions said:
Naturally we are talking about our needs, and as we get closer to 2017 we will discuss the details of what the next package will include and under what conditions.
Still, opposition to an increase exists, and it comes in some cases from some surprising places. Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser in the Bush administration who is generally regarded as hawkish, said:
There’s a diminished threat from the Syrian army and no increase in the power of the Egyptian army. Syria and Egypt are preoccupied with war on, or repression of, their own rebellious citizens and thus pose less risk to Israel, with consequent implications for Israel’s military aid requirements. Egypt’s military is not expected to receive any boost in its current level of US aid.
As for the recent US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE., Dov Zakheim, a former top Pentagon official who sat in on many discussions about military aid to Israel, said:
It is not a matter of arm-twisting. There is a long-standing commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge that has been accepted by the US for good reasons. If you look at the issues, Israel and the Gulf states are on the same page. Saudi Arabia, the smaller Gulf countries and Israel share the same concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the spread of extremist Islamic forces. So as long as the Gulf countries become more sophisticated in protecting their territories, this will cause more difficulties to Iran, and that’s a good thing.
An Aug 15 article published in Defense News first reported that Israel is seeking an increase in the foreign aid, which reached $30b in the decade-long agreement signed in 2007. Israeli officials confirmed to the Forward that informal talks are already taking place, but they said intense detailed discussions are not planned for the near future. Much has changed since the last military aid deal was signed, in 2007. Israel’s neighborhood has become even more volatile, as the Arab Spring toppled or threatened long-standing authoritarian regimes. This has deprived Israel of a certain regional predictability it enjoyed, even with regimes with which it remained in a state of war. Meanwhile, the US economy is still struggling to recover from its worst slump since the Great Depression, forcing the federal government to cut back on all government expenses, and raising new doubts about the affordability of a robust foreign aid program. While other nations struggle to receive US taxpayer dollars, Israel rarely faces resistance. Strong support in the administration and Congress, coupled with favorable public opinion and a strong lobby advocating for the cause, has made sustaining and increasing military aid to Israel an easy sell. This time around should be no different, officials and experts knowledgeable about the process say, despite the changed environment. In preliminary talks, Israel began to lay out the principles it would like to see guide the next aid package. One will aim to put a dollar sum on the cost of maintaining Israel’s QME. This estimate will take into account what it will take to ensure that Israel’s armed forces are always one step ahead of their adversaries, or those Israel argues are adversaries, in the region. The second will be to include missile defense programs, currently funded through a separate Pentagon budget line, in the foreign aid program managed through the State Dept’s budget. Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren told Defense News:
We’re looking at a holistic Middle Eastern picture, which includes growth of missile arsenals in Lebanon and Gaza; the strategic situation in Sinai; the Syrian situation as it impacts us and other countries, including Jordan. “Therefore, we will be looking for a long-term MoU that will address all of the issues that are routinely raised in our very close and high-level consultations with our US counterparts.
USraeli officials who were involved in past aid negotiations described a process driven by needs, not by the total dollar amount of the aid package. It begins with Israelis presenting the threats they believe they’ll face in the coming decades and the weapons systems they’ll need to address these threats. Before the last MoU was signed in 2007, the deal was first finalized between Bush 43 and Olmert, and only then handed down to the lower levels where the details were worked out. AIPAC is deeply involved in the process, mainly in convincing Congress, once the administration makes a decision on the aid levels, to approve the assistance year after year and to make adjustments throughout the 10-year period if needed. A former pro-Israel activist who was involved in those discussions said:
There’s a pretty good system in place. AIPAC people know all the details and make sure the best package for Israel is approved regardless of who controls the committees.
As discussions begin on the next assistance deal, Israel is looking for US help with a different set of concerns. Iran’s nuclear program remains the main issue for Israel, which is seeking advanced US weapons systems to deter Iran and possibly to take action against it. But according to an Israeli official, short-range rocket threats from Hamas and Hezbollah now make up a bigger part of Israel’s plea, given the experience of recent years and the need to bolster missile defense systems. New elements have also been brought into the calculation. These include Israel’s fear of instability in Egypt. Though the new government is actually friendlier to Israel than the ousted one was, the shakeup has stoked Israeli fears of an eventual full or partial revocation of Camp David. Jerusalem is also concerned about diminishing security along Egypt’s Sinai border with Israel, as the turmoil in Cairo has given terrorists in that area freer rein. Israel also worries that Syria’s civil war may spill over, or that the country could break up, with nonconventional weapons falling into the hands of Jihadis using the country as an operating base, or that Jordan could also see upheaval due to internal unrest and a huge influx of Syrian refugees. The financial downturn that has plagued the US since 2007 could change the backdrop of the upcoming aid talks, although assistance to Israel enjoys widespread support within the US public and in Congress. After many deliberations in Jerusalem and Washington, Israel and its supporters decided not to seek an exemption from the across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration. Israel agreed to take a cut of more than $150m to its annual aid rather than be seen as seeking special treatment at a time when the US people are suffering the consequences of sequestration. Asking for an increase in aid at a time when the US is still struggling could come across as insensitive, but the Israeli official said this was not the impression Israel has gotten from its US counterparts. Abrams, on the other hand, proposed in an interview with the Forward a dramatic change to the pattern of military relations between Israel and the United States: Doing away with U.S. aid to Israel altogether. Abrams pointed to Israel’s recent natural gas finds that are expected to create a huge cash surplus for the ‘Jewish state’ in coming years, and said:
You can’t have Israel becoming richer and richer and then coming to the US to ask for foreign aid. Israel can pay for the weapon systems it buys from the US, just as Saudi Arabia does, and that military to military ties can remain strong, even without a foreign aid component.“I think it would be advantageous to the relations. Any discussion about cutting the aid should be done privately, otherwise, anyone proposing it would be accused by political rivals of not standing behind Israel. Israel’s popularity in the US is tremendous, and it might grow even more if foreign aid is taken out of the discussion.
Niqnaq 