In danger
Will Democrats really try to stop military support to Israel?
Is Israel’s $3.8 billion annual no-strings US aid in danger? No. Should it be? That’s a more interesting and complex question. For the first time, several leading presidential contenders are talking about using aid to Israel as leverage to make sure US funds are used to advance American policy goals, notably the peace process and better Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, and in particular to block further annexation of the West Bank
The issue was raised at this month’s national meeting of J Street, the leftist pro-peace lobby, by three Democratic candidates who want the United States to do more to promote the two-state solution, which the current Israeli government opposes. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg also want to block using aid money for settlement expansion, annexation of the West Bank, and the policy goals of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and most of his right-wing partners.
There’s actually a 41-year-old law on the books prohibiting using US aid beyond the 1967 border, but money is fungible, and Netanyahu knows that, even if the candidates don’t.
Sen. Bernie Sanders wants Israel to “fundamentally” change how it deals with the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. He has suggested using some of Israel’s military aid for humanitarian assistance in the Hamas-run enclave.
This has sent the Right into a frenzy, echoing Donald Trump’s charge that Democrats “hate Israel” and that Jews who vote Democrat are “uninformed or disloyal.” One conservative pundit accused the three Democrats of pushing Israel to “commit national suicide at the jihadist altar of the ‘two-state solution’ cartel.” Others called it antisemitic and an endorsement of the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel) movement. Never mind that former vice president Joe Biden called the proposal “absolutely outrageous,” that senators Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bennet and Julian Castro also rejected it, or that the proposal won’t go anywhere – but I’ll get back to that shortly.
All, however, do support the two-state solution, and oppose settlement expansion and further Israeli annexation of occupied territories.
Republicans hope to use threats to cut aid – which won’t make it into the Democratic platform at next summer’s convention, much less to Congress for a vote – as a wedge issue to lure Jews into voting for Trump. They’ve been trying that for a quarter-century, and it hasn’t worked yet and won’t next year. If anything, Jews are more likely to vote Democratic in 2020 than they did in 2016, and all of Trump’s “gifts” to Israel won’t change that.
The Republican Jewish Coalition launched a $10 million ad campaign saying it is a shanda (“disgrace”) even to speak of leveraging aid to Israel. The Republican message to Jewish voters is “We love Israel more,” so vote for us, but they can’t conceal that their party’s domestic and foreign policy agendas are so unappealing. They are further burdened by the widening gap between Israel and American Jewry, something driven in large part by Netanyahu’s hard-right policies at home and his tight embrace of the GOP and Trump, who is hugely disliked by most American Jews.
THE FORWARD conducted a Twitter poll last week on conditioning aid to Israel, and the response was nearly 3:1 against. But that won’t translate into Jewish votes for Trump. All indications are Jews will still vote at least 3:1 against Trump and Republicans next year. In fact, in last year’s Congressional election, which was widely seen as a referendum on Trump’s first two years, polls indicated that nearly 80% of Jews voted Democratic.
If Democrats want to see Israel support peace with the Palestinians and the two-state solution, to prevent further annexation of the West Bank and help relieve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, cutting US aid is the wrong approach.
Over many decades being in Washington lobbying for closer bilateral relations, I’ve seen getting votes for aid to Israel go from very tough to autopilot. It took many years to build a bipartisan consensus (Republicans largely opposed foreign aid well into the 1980s; going to all-military aid helped), but that began breaking down when the GOP, led by then-speaker Newt Gingrich, decided to make it a partisan wedge issue. He realized that with its conservative agenda, Republicans weren’t going to get many Jewish votes and contributions unless they could “out-Israel” the Democrats. It produced a lot of money but few votes.
Attempts to cut aid to Israel won’t get much support on Capitol Hill beyond the fringes of both parties because of the importance given to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge, but there are effective measures lawmakers can take to make sure taxpayer money is being used to advance American interests and policies.
It is also important to avoid signaling Israel’s enemies of weakened American support by cutting military aid.
In my experience, Israeli leaders and policy-makers appreciate American support but don’t want any advice or criticism, not from lawmakers and not from the Diaspora. Their response too has often been, “Shut up and send more money. We know what’s best.”
How badly does Israel need the $3.8 billion a year, more than any other country in the world where the US is not fighting a war? Israel is considered the 19th most “highly developed” country by the UN. The World Bank says it has a “higher standard of living than many other Western countries.” Credit Suisse says it is wealthier than any other country in the Middle East, and that average Israeli wealth slightly exceeds European wealth. It has a robust hi-tech industry, is the fourth most educated country in the world and 21st in median household income; 97% of the people have at least one mobile phone and 70% have at least one car.
Support for Israel is half politics and half foreign policy, and it can be hard to tell where one begins and the other leaves off.
Former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro noted that US aid serves a dual purpose: ensuring Israel can defend itself and that the aid serves American interests.
Washington has many tools for influencing Israeli policy that need never go public or signal new vulnerability for the Jewish state. Messages can be sent quietly but clearly in areas of intelligence sharing, technology availability, diplomatic support, trade restrictions, relations with the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, high-level exchanges, policy coordination and more.
Those tools are there only if an administration has the will to use them.
There is an answer to Israel’s desire to avoid US pressure on policy: Wean itself off dependence on $3.8 billion a year from American taxpayers.