On July 10, 1996, at a Joint Session of the United States Congress,
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received a standing ovation
for these words: "With America's help, Israel has grown to be a
powerful, modern state. ...But I believe there can be no greater tribute
to America's long-standing economic aid to Israel than for us to be
able to say: we are going to achieve economic independence. We are
going to do it. In the next four years, we will begin the long-term
process of gradually reducing the level of your generous economic
assistance to Israel."
Since
1996, the American taxpayers are still sending Israel $3 billion a year
and providing assorted loan guarantees, waivers, rich technology
transfers and other indirect assistance. Before George W. Bush left
office a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Israel
stipulated an assistance package of $30 billion over the next ten years
to be transferred in a lump sum at the beginning of every fiscal year.
Israel's wars and colonies still receive U.S. taxpayer monies.
What happened to Mr. Netanyahu's solemn pledge to the Congress? The short answer is that Congress never called in the pledge.
In the intervening years, Israel has become an economic, technological
and military juggernaut. Its GDP is larger than Egypt's even though
Israel's population is less than one tenth that of the Arab world's
most populous nation. The second largest number of listings on
America's NASDAQ Exchange after U.S. companies are from Israel,
exceeding listings of Japan, Korea, China and India combined. Its
venture capital investments exceed those in the U.S., Europe and China
on a per capita basis.
Israel is arguably the fifth most powerful military force in the world,
and Israel's claims on the U.S.'s latest weapon systems and
research/development breakthroughs are unsurpassed. This combination
has helped to make Israel a major arms exporter.
The Israeli "economic miracle" and technological innovations have
spawned articles and a best-selling book in recent months. The
country's average GDP growth rate has exceeded the average rate of most
western countries over the past five years. Israel provides universal
health insurance, unlike the situation in the U.S., which raises the
question of who should be aiding whom?
Keep in mind, the U.S. economy is mired in a recession, with large
rates of growing poverty, unemployment, consumer debt and state and
federal deficits. In some states, public schools are shutting, public
health services are being slashed, and universities are increasing
tuition while also cutting programs. Even state government buildings
are being sold off.
Under U.S. law, military sales to Israel cannot be used for offensive
purposes, only for "legitimate self-defense." Nonetheless, there have
been numerous violations of the Arms Export Control Act by Israel. Even
the indifferent State Department has found, from time to time, that
munitions such as cluster bombs were "likely violations."
Violations would lead to a cut-off in aid but with the completely
pro-Israel climate in Washington, the White House has never allowed
such findings to be definitive.
The same indifference applies to violations of the U.S. Foreign
Assistance Act that prohibits aid to countries engaging in consistent
international human rights violations. These include the occupation,
colonization, blockades and military assaults on civilians in the
Palestinian West Bank and Gaza, regularly documented by the highly
regarded Israeli human rights group B'Tselem as well as by Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch.
This week, Prime Minister Netanyahu visits President Barack Obama after
the recent Israeli announcement of 1,600 new housing units in East
Jerusalem made while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting that country.
The affront infuriated New York Times
columnist, Tom Friedman, who wrote that Mr. Biden should have packed
his bags and flown away leaving behind a scribbled note saying "You
think you can embarrass your only true ally in the world, to satisfy
some domestic political need, with no consequences? You have lost total
contact with reality."
Friedman, a former Times Middle
East correspondent, concluded his rebuke by writing: "Palestinian
leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad are as genuine and serious about
working toward a solution as any Israel can hope to find."
But until a few days ago, the U.S. government had no levers over the
Israeli government. Cutting off aid isn't even whispered in the halls
of Congress. Raising the issue would further galvanize Israel's allies,
including AIPAC.
The only lever left for the U.S. suddenly erupted into the public media
a few days ago. General David Petraeus told the Senate that resolving
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has foreign policy and national
security ramifications for the United States.
He said that "The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a
perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the
Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships
with governments and peoples in the Area of Responsibility...Meanwhile,
Al-Qaeda and other military groups exploit that anger to mobilize
support."
A few days earlier, Vice President Joe Biden told Prime Minister
Netanyahu in Israel that "what you're doing here undermines the
security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and
Pakistan."
What Obama's people are publically starting to say is that regional
peace is about U.S. vital interests in that large part of the Middle
East and, ultimately, the safety of American soldiers and personnel.
As one retired diplomat commented "This could be a game-changer."