By Jacob Prall
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has had a thorny relationship with the Obama administration. They don’t see eye to eye on a lot of things — from the beginning, the officials have fought over settlement freezes, relations with Iran, and leaked information to Israeli news outlets.
Netanyahu was ready to pass on any military-aid deal with President Obama, hoping 2016 would bring candidates more in line with his ideals. Now, with the nominees in place, Netanyahu can’t cut a deal fast enough.
The new deal is the largest military-aid package in history. The deal, as it stands today, is set to pump $5 billion of military spending into Israel every year for a decade. The deal is enormous, but it comes with some new restrictions.
The Obama administration insists that the Israeli government not spend U.S. funding on Israeli research and development. Israel has always been able to spend U.S. money on its programs, billions of dollars worth over the decades. This is a privilege that no other nation enjoys — there are strict rules against R&D taking place using U.S. military-aid funding.
This is a step in the right direction. Israel has come under fire by humanitarian groups for its police-state behavior and habitual human-rights violations against Palestinians. This includes everything from aggressive and humiliating stop-and-search practices to the intentional draining of Palestinian water systems, which deprives people of hygiene, harvest, and good health.
The end of internal military spending in Israel could help de-escalate the situation it is in. It is no surprise that Israel exists as it does today. A nation surrounded by less-than-friendly countries is liable to become militarized. Channel billions of dollars in military spending into that nation for decades, and the resulting mess is a state with the benefits of a massive military capability, sure, but also a military-industrial complex and warrior mentality that isn’t always content with the idea of peace (and a two-state solution) in the Middle East.
Now, this isn’t a total indictment of Israel. Its behavior against a civilian populace has been at times deplorable, but the U.S. funding strategy shares responsibility for the current militarily oriented Israel.
With that in mind, the package being proposed is too large and has too little oversight. So much could happen over the course of the next decade, it isn’t fair to either nation to lock in a 10-year commitment.
Tel Aviv and Washington should continue to foster a strong relationship, and military-aid packages can help strengthen the bond. The ability to curtail military funding dependent on the actions of Israel, however, should be a right the U.S. preserves. This is especially true when talking about the amount of money involved. If a sustainable peace is to be reached in the Middle East, it won’t come from near-unadulterated military spending. De-escalation is much harder to achieve when military spending is so overgrown.
