Why new aid deal is good for Israel

The new, $38 billion military aid deal with Israel is meant to end annual political fights over money for our strongest Middle East ally. Unfortunately, announcement of the deal started a new political fight.

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu agreed on the 10-year, $38 billion package thatwould take effect in October 2018. Israel already is the largest recipient ofUnited States defense assistance, at $3.1billion annually. The dealwould increase that to $3.8 billion —$3.3 billion forweapons and $500 million for missile defense.

Critics who think the amount is too high will complain that Israel is getting a raise without making any change in policy. Israeli aid at this level dates to the 1979 CampDavid agreement, in which Israel returned territory to Egypt in exchange for peace. Critics who think the amount is too lowwill complain thatNetanyahu had hoped for annual assistance of $4.5 billion.

As many in the Israeli press have written, however, Netanyahu brought the deal on himself through earlier mistakes. In opposing the Iranian nuclear agreement, Netanyahuwent around Obama and appealed directly to Congress in a speech last March just before elections in Israel. Netanyahu’s actionwas unprecedented. It also failed. Congresswas unable to block the deal.

In return, Obama sought to go around Congress by makingNetanyahu not only consent to a lesser— though still adequate — amount but to pledge that Israelwould not lobby Congress for additional money. Lawmakers regularly have upped that $3.1 billion figure. Several Republican senators, many of them in tight races, said lastweek that theywould ignore the pledge and push for more money.

Israelwould benefit froman end to such political battles. In recent years, these fights have made Israel less of a bipartisan priority than it had been for decades. In a recent Brookings Institution poll, more than half of Democrats responded that Israel should get less money. Republicans were almost evenly divided.

In addition, the deal reflects new realities in Israel. Under the current agreement, Israel can spend 26 percent of its American aid on Israeli-madeweapons. That made sense when Israel’s defense industry hadn’t become established, but the country is now an arms exporter competing with theU.S. Beginning in the sixth year, the new agreement phases in a requirement that all money be spent on American-madeweapons.

For all the disagreement between Obama andNetanyahu, therewas a strong push within Israel to finalize the deal before Obama left office. Security officials wanted certainty before the presidential election. Donald Trump talked at one point of making Israel pay for its assistance. Hillary Clintonwas seen as more reliable than Trump, butwaiting for a new administration of either partywould havemeant delay.

Obama had his own reasons forwanting to conclude the deal. He can argue persuasively that despite regular criticism from Netanyahu and fromRepublicans in Congress, the Obama administration has compiled a strong pro-Israel record. Wewould agree.

The $24 billion Israel has received since Obama took office is the most under any administration. Though he originally opposed it, Obama agreed to extra money for the Iron Dome missile-defense system. The deal with Iran effectively removes the nuclear option for 10 years. Former Defense MinisterMoshe Yaalon recently said Israel faces "no existential threat." The new aid agreement will buttress Israel’s security after the Iran deal. In a true emergency— such as Egypt’s surprise invasion in1973— Israel still can seek emergency help.

Speculation is that Obama will use the new agreement to make a last attempt at a two-state deal between Israel and the Palestinians. In that scenario, after the election Obamawould introduce a resolution at theUnitedNations setting out the parameters for a deal— among them land swaps based on the 1967 borders, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, a very limited right of return for Palestinian refugees from1948 and1967 and demilitarization of any Palestinian state.

One cannot predict Obama’s action. Such amove, however, would be a departing gesture of goodwill. As many Israelis and American supporters of Israel have said, without such a solution Israelwould have to choose between being a Jewish state or a democratic state.

Ironically, some of Israel’s most fervent supporters have hurt the country’s image with their stridency during Obama’s presidency. To keep support for Israel bipartisan, end the partisan fights.