SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
arms industry
Meet the People Profiting from US Military Aid to Israel
Millionaire CEOs benefit from the consumption of military goods and services that, so far, have enabled the killing of well over 50,000 people—nearly a third of them under 18. Lobbying and campaign contributions help ensure that their profits increase. It’s a vicious cycle that only a society obsessed with growth could stomach.
Shifting Public Sentiment
In their horrific October 7, 2023, attack, Hamas killed more than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals and took 251 hostages. Even before this attack, many nations designated Hamas as a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction. They cite its charter and longstanding tactics of suicide bombings, indiscriminate rocket fire, and the use of human shields.
Yet Hamas’s actions have been eclipsed in the minds of many Americans by the scenes of devastation streaming from Gaza. More Americans think the United States is providing too much military aid to Israel (34%) than not enough aid (17%) or the right amount (26%). Democrats and Republicans alike are trending toward less favorable views of the war and the United States’s involvement. Still, a majority of Republicans support maintaining or increasing military aid to Israel, which makes the Trump administration’s approach unsurprising.
The same can’t be said for the preceding Biden administration or the Harris campaign. A strong majority of Democratic voters think the U.S. should stop weapons shipments to Israel. Why, then, did Biden allocate over $23 billion in taxes to that end? And why didn’t the Harris campaign, desperate for votes, promise to halt the controversial military aid?
Economic Growth’s Role in U.S.-Israel-Palestine Dynamics
Many complex factors influence the United States’ relationship with Israel. The Middle East is a critical fossil-fuel producer. There are an estimated three billion barrels of oil beneath and off the coast of Palestinian lands. The United States may also be motivated to match Russia’s recent relationship-building in the region. We would be remiss, however, not to acknowledge the influence of the entities cashing the military-aid check: U.S. defense corporations, such as Boeing, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin.
Ecological limits to growth are certainly at play as a driver of Israel’s conflict. In addition to attracting global interests for its fossil-fuel reserves, the region lacks sufficient water and arable land to sustainably support its dense and growing population. However, this story is more about the social consequences of the neoliberal economic-growth model and the actors that drive it.
Virtually every industry exploits someone to grow beyond local resource limits, but the defense industry deserves unique scrutiny. For one thing, violent death is a particularly heinous breed of exploitation. For another, the government is especially committed to the defense industry’s growth. It sees growth as the only way to maintain “military primacy,” the long-time top priority of U.S. foreign policy.
Military “Aid” for Israel
Since its founding, Israel has received more U.S. aid than any other country, at $310 billion. The next biggest aid recipient, Egypt, has received just over half that much ($168 billion). The vast majority of the $310 billion is military, as opposed to economic, aid.
It is one matter to support a strategic ally in defending itself from hostile neighbors. It is quite another matter to provide 23 billion taxpayer dollars as your ally’s “defense” morphs into a genocide. To put that figure into perspective, the United States committed a total of $79 billion in foreign assistance in 2023. A quarter of that was military aid. The rest was economic aid (which the Trump administration has since eviscerated).
Israel is unique in that it has historically been permitted to use some of its U.S. military aid on Israeli equipment and services. However, the United States is phasing out that privilege. It has required Israel to spend most of the aid provided since October 2023 on transactions with U.S. defense contractors. Adapting to these requirements, Israeli contractors have begun transferring personnel and capacities to the United States (contributing to U.S. military primacy). Large Israeli firms, such as Elbit Systems and UVision, have opened U.S. subsidiaries, but smaller arms makers lack the resources to start U.S. operations.
Benefits to Israel are Debatable. Benefits to Corporations are Not.
The UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs warned that “the conflict in Lebanon, coupled with intensified strikes in Syria and the raging violence in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, points to a region dangerously teetering on the brink of an all-out war.” Who would benefit from an all-out war in the Middle East? The same corporations benefiting from the conflict to date: a long list topped by Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and RTX (formerly Raytheon and United Technologies).
Details about weapons provisions to Israel have been shrouded in secrecy, in contrast to less-controversial provisions to Ukraine. However, documentation of recent major arms sales helps paint a picture.
In August 2024, the Boeing Corporation received an $18.8 billion contract for F-15 fighter jets and related equipment. Boeing was the lead contractor for an additional $6.8 billion munitions package, approved by the State Department this February. These contracts are a lifeline for the company, which has seen financial losses for the last six years. Boeing’s Defense Space Security Segment accounted for a plurality of its revenue in 2024.
Also in February, General Dynamics, Ellwood National Forge Company, and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant were listed as the “prime” contractors on a $2 billion sale of over 35 thousand bomb bodies and four thousand “Penetrator” warheads. Unlike Boeing, General Dynamics is thriving. The company netted $3.8 billion in 2024, up 14 percent from 2023. At the outset of the conflict, the company’s executive vice president (who receives over $9 million in annual compensation) said, “You know, the Israel situation obviously is a terrible one…But I think if you look at the incremental demand potential coming out of that, the biggest one to highlight and that really sticks out is probably on the artillery side.”
Beyond Corporation Obfuscation: The Humans Who Benefit
We tend to accept corporate greed, as an inevitable evil or even a beneficial quality in a free market economy. A company’s primary responsibility is to its shareholders, after all. However, there are living, breathing human beings hiding behind these “corporate” norms.
Defense-industry managers and shareholders personally benefit from the production of goods and services used for genocide. To sleep at night, they might tell themselves that the deaths of 16 thousand children are collateral damage that’s unfortunate but necessary to stop Hamas. They probably even tell themselves that evolution means survival of the fittest, and they have no obligation to care.
Who are these people? Meet Boeing’s CEO, Kelly Ortberg. Boeing brought Ortberg on last year, inspired by his performance at Rockwell Collins, where he oversaw $9 billion in sales growth (thanks in part to acquisitions like Arinc). Ortberg has been tasked with pulling the company out of its financial slump and smoothing over safety-incident controversies. Boeing compensates him well for his troubles, to the tune of $18 million per year.
Ortberg’s estimated net worth of $26 million is chump change compared to the General Dynamics CEO’s net worth. In fact, Phebe Novakovic earned almost that much ($24 million) in 2024 alone, bringing her net worth to an estimated $450 million (up from just $150 million in 2020). Novakovic is the sixth highest-paid woman in the United States.
During a shareholder meeting, an activist confronted Novakovic about the company’s involvement with repressive dictatorships. The activist asserted that a Saudi-led coalition used General Dynamics’ products to bomb a marketplace in Yemen in 2016, killing 25 children and 75 additional civilians. Novakovic responded, “We can define and we can debate who is evil and who is not, but we do support the policy of the U.S. and I happen to believe…the policy of the U.S. is just and fair.”
RTX Corporation compensated its CEO, Christopher Calio, $18 million in 2024. Kathy Warden, Northrop Grumman’s CEO, and Jim Taiclet, Lockheed Martin’s CEO, were each compensated $24 million. This brought their net worths to an estimated $108 million and $84 million, respectively. It’s worth noting that a significant portion of these CEOs’ compensation—between 55 and 87 percent for the five CEOs mentioned—is in the form of stock and stock options in their companies. This incentivizes them to push for growth at all costs (even genocide), as growth often determines share prices.
These defense CEOs live private lives, so we cannot say whether they hoard their wealth or spend it on a luxurious lifestyle (evidence suggests millionaires usually do the latter). But make no mistake, they are disproportionately contributing to the drawdown of natural resources and the social infractions that inevitably accompany it. Every dollar “printed” into the economy is linked to environmental impact. Therefore, the impact of someone earning $20 million per year is almost 1,500 times bigger than that of the average global citizen. (This is the logic for capping salaries.)
Another Casualty of Unfettered Growth: Corporate Capture
Money is power, often wielded to influence policymakers and ensure further economic gains. Novakovic believes U.S. policy is “just and fair,” yet General Dynamics spent $15.6 million to influence it in 2024 ($12.2 on lobbying and $3.4 on campaign contributions). To smartly invest this money, the company employs 50 lobbyists (out of 77 total) who’ve previously held government jobs. They’ve even hired former congressman Jim Moran via his lobbying firm, Moran Global Strategies. Moran served as a Virginia representative for 24 years.
The defense sector spent a total of $149 million on lobbying and $43 million on campaign contributions in 2024 (Boeing, categorized under the transportation sector, spent $12 million and $6 million, respectively). Many other sectors, including health, transportation, and agribusiness, spent more than defense, cumulatively. However, some particularly big spenders characterize the defense sector. RTX, Lockheed Martin, and General Dynamics alone made up 26 percent of the sector’s lobbying, ranking 19, 21, and 22 out of all lobbying clients.
In the last Congress, the bill most frequently lobbied by both RTX and Lockheed Martin (General Dynamics was right on their heels) was the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. It included several provisions to increase U.S. military aid to Israel, including $500 million for U.S.-Israel missile defense programs.
Companies that spent over $5 million on lobbying in 2024. The revolving door column displays the percentage of the company’s lobbyists who previously held government jobs. (OpenSecrets)
Lobbying money can go far with the right expertise. Over 60 percent of the defense sector’s 948 lobbyists used to hold government positions. This “revolving door” works both ways, as evidenced by reverse revolvers like Lloyd Austin. Before being appointed secretary of defense under the Biden administration, Austin earned seven figures from defense companies. Amongst these was United Technologies, which later merged into RTX. He also worked at Pine Island Capital Partners, a private equity firm that invests in defense companies and advertises its access to DC.
This is how unsustainable growth gets woven into the social fabric: one wealthy, powerful interest and one influenced policymaker at a time. Of course, defense-industry growth isn’t the only factor prompting the United States to support Israel. However, even the White House acknowledges it’s a special consideration. It justified a $92 billion emergency supplemental request that included support for Israel on the basis that it would make “significant and much needed investments in the American defense industrial base, benefitting U.S. military readiness and helping to create and sustain jobs in dozens of states across America.”
A genocide backed by economic interests is a big problem involving powerful actors. However, many people are taking action to affect the status quo. One approach that has gained momentum is to divest from defense corporations selling arms to Israel and encourage institutions to do the same. Since the start of the conflict, campus activists have successfully pressured several universities to take divestment action. These include the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and Portland State University.
Another approach is to tell your political representatives to stop arming Israel with your tax dollars. This can be done individually or via a coalition. Last year, one coalition of over 75 organizations and another of 100 journalists called on politicians to “stop arming Israel.” Clearly, their success has been limited to date. However, a critical mass of grassroots lobbying is hard for elected representatives to ignore. At a certain scale, it may even outcompete the corporate lobbying of the defense sector.
This article first appeared at the Steady State Herald, a publication by the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE).
Flood of Western Weapons Fueling Unrest, Extremism Across Middle East
Researchers assigned all of these countries a "D," "E," or "F" grade for corruption, with the majority in the latter category denoting "critical" risk. The United States is the major supplier for most of these countries, with the United Kingdom, Germany, and Russia also significant exporters.
The report warns: "Corruption has fueled political unrest, extremism, and formed a narrative for violent extremist groups."
The role of the United States in driving this arms flow was well-established long before Transparency International's report. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that between 2010 and 2014, the United States was the world's top arms supplier, accounting for 31 percent of global exports. This compared with 27 percent for Russia.
The IHS Jane's 360 report, released in March, found that Saudi Arabia was the "number one" military trading partner with the United States in 2014. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Defense announced its approval of an $11.25 billion deal to sell combat ships to Saudi Arabia, which has been waging a military assault against Yemen for more than six months.
The Transparency International report shows these sales fuel internal corruption and excessive militarization.
"In Saudi Arabia, the 'tactic of using defense purchases to solidify alliances' has resulted in significant misuse of the budget by purchasing different platforms that serve the same purpose," the report states. "The 2015 findings show that the state now holds large numbers of duplicative weapons systems, including the operationally similar Typhoon and F-15 fighter jets, and comparable armored personnel vehicles from Canada, Serbia, and Germany. This results in wasteful support structures and unnecessary compatibility problems."
"In Qatar," the investigation notes, "there is no evidence of meaningful oversight of, or accountability for, procurement. Our assessor indicated that purchase decisions are sometimes 'seemingly bizarre'--noting that it remains unclear why Qatar needs over 100 tanks given the state's small size, for example. The rationale underlying these purchases is not known or shared publicly. Evidence suggests that Qatar's key purchases have been politically strategic rather than being best suited for their military needs."
"Over a quarter of the world's most secretive defense spending is in the Middle East," Katherine Dixon, head of Transparency International's Defense and Security Program, told The Intercept. "Corruption puts international security at risk, as money and weapons can be diverted to fuel conflict."
War: The Wrong Jobs Program
More than 40 years ago, long before anyone had ever heard of Barack Obama, before the collapse of Bear Stearns, and before contemporary debates about bailouts and debt ceilings, two authors, Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy, considered a tricky problem. In times of downturn, the government must spend to stimulate the economy. Yet getting the political establishment to agree on one particular program of spending seemed nearly impossible.
Baran and Sweezy phrased the conundrum as a question: "On what could the government spend enough to keep the system from sinking into the mire of stagnation?"
Most Popular