I think it may be a meme in the making from this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13313312&postcount=24
The answer is in the first paragraph of the post you quoted.
The defense budget was $14.3 billion in 2009, and according to this the budget for the IAF was $2 billion. So it’s quite a lot in relative terms.
I don’t think that means Israel is strategically dependent on US military aid, but it’s worth noting that the US gives Israel more in military aid alone than it gives any other state* in total aid.
*except Iraq.
Le sigh.
Not feeling like getting into another bit of nonsense that this thread will degenerate into sooner or later, but fact checking is important.
The US military aid to Israel is about 3 billion a year. The aid to South Korea?
[
](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E5DC133EF93BA35752C0A9659C8B63)
That was in 2003.
Dollar for dollar I wonder which 3 billion is a better use of our money on a mutual alliance?
Hard to see any military or economic benefit to the U.S. in either. Unless you think being able to put U.S. bases in a country is a “military benefit” by definition, then, SK.
How about le read your own quote? American military presence =/= financial aid. Unless the US suddenly started stationing troops in Israel and I missed it.
That’s worth a lot (SK bases). Force prjection in an economically and strategically vital region. And a non-carrier-based staging area (now that the Red Chinese are making noise about carrier-killer missiles).
Israel could in practice play a similar role, but in fact, no. Every U.S.-Arab alliance falls apart the moment the U.S. builds a base in Israel (assuming Israel woul even allow that) or embarks on joint operations with the IDF against a common (preumably Muslim) enemy. Hell, Egypt is near the top of the U.S. aid list, mainly as a payoff for Egypt’s tolerating Israel (to put it generously).
Korea is increasingly a vital trade partner for the U.S. (though the free trade agreement is stalled). Israel is probably somewhat smaller on that list though they are pretty great in pharma and biotech and some electronics. There is something to be said for protecting your trading partners.
On balance I’d say U.S. sponsorship of the U.K., Geremany, and Japan is more at the core a value-add than either Israel or SK.
Come now. When you’re proven wrong, you can at least gracefully admit it. The standard “lol read the cite”, when you’re wrong about it, RNATB, is an absurdity.
I will also draw attention to your bait-and-switch. Your original claim was not “financial aid” but military aid. You know this, because I quoted you and directly responded to your error, and proved that you had posted from a position of error and ignorance. The fact is that we spend about 3 billion a year on military aid to Israel. As of 2003, we were spending about 3 billion a year on military aid to South Korea. Your false claim was that we spend more on military aid to Israel than we do for any other state’s aid, in toto.
Proven wrong, you tried to act as if you’d talked about simple “financial aid” rather than military aid, and pretended that three (plus) billion in annual military aid to South Korea doesn’t count unless we were also stationing troops in other nations.
You’re wrong. The facts clearly show that the military aid we give to Israel is not only not “more in military aid alone than it gives any other state in total aid”, but pretty much identical to what we give to South Korea. You can admit you’re wrong, or refuse to. But refusing to admit error, in the manner you’ve attempted, is not exactly the best course of action.
American aid to Israel isn’t about Israel, it’s about Egypt. In terms of training and equipment, the Egyptian army is still geared entirely toward war against Israel. If the U.S. stops giving money to Israel, it’ll have to stop giving money to Egypt; if it stops giving money to Egypt, the peace between the countries - and probably the Egyptian regime - will collapse, taking the rest of the Middle East with it.
At least, that’s my take.
We’ve grabbed opposite sides of the coin. My most recent post cited Egypt and the U.S. payoff to keep them from leading a pan-Arab front.
But realistically, the chicken-egg debate does not resolve with saying the U.S. cares about Egypt qua Egypt.
Ther’s little to no Egypt lobby in the U.S. (I love my Coptic friends, and they’ve got a bit of money and influence, but then they’re hardly likely to support the current Egyptian regime), a huge pro-Israel lobby. Placating Egypt is the tail, helping Israel the dog, not vice versa.
I’m talking realpolitik here. There’s no risk that Israel will ever start a war with Egypt, not that it will succum to Muslim fundamentalism. The size and strengh of their relative lobbies is irrelevant.
Considering how many soldiers SK has committed to our endeavors, it is pretty clear that there is a benefit to our continued investment. Besides what Huerta88 has pointed out, if SK did not exist due to NK’s aggression many important economic ties would simply not exist and I guess they far exceed the cost of our military commitment.
I would not say that Israel is dependent on American weapons, but they are dependent on American resupply in the event of something like 73 happening again. Either Israel launches a pre-emptive strike on whomever is going to invade, like they did in 67 or they only have just enough war stock on hand to last several days without looking towards the sky waiting for the C-17’s to show up with spare parts and more ammo for their air force and army.
I presume that Israels armed forces have this firmly in mind, and have built up a goodly amount of warstock for just such an occasion, but estimates never really equate with usage when its time to start throwing the kitchen sink into the mix.
Declan
That’s part of the reason that Israel has such an extensive munitions industry - I’m pretty sure that most ammunition, shells, rockets and missiles used by the Israeli military (except from certain bleeding-edge American stuff) is manufactured in Israel. Israeli manufacturing capabilities are good enough to manufacture a surplus, which is why something like one third of all small-arms ammunition used by the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past few years was actually made in Israel.
Still, you make a good point, and it’s something that future historians will surely expound on. At our current level of technology, first-rate munitions are so expensive, and can be used so rapidly and at such volumes, that no country in the world, other than perhaps the U.S., can fight a full-on total war for more than a couple of weeks without running out. It’s an interesting state of affairs.
Wasnt there a story about the US running out of ammo two weeks into the Iraq Invasion (I have confused memory here, probably mixing some things up, but does it ring anyone’s bell?)
The “military aid” we give South Korea is in the form of stationing troops there. The military aid we give Israel is in the form of cash. The former has nothing to do with the latter. This would have been clear to you if you had read your own citation.
But by all means, please continue to pretend you have “proven me wrong”.
I don’t think you can compare stationing our troops in South Korea to handing a $3 Billion dollar check over to Israel, they’re two different things. Some SKs consider the military presence in Sk an occupation. I doubt anyone thinks of US aid to Israel as an occupation. With taht said, there are advantages to SK to by US military in SK.
Having those troops there might not seem as good as just getting a $3 billion dollar check but having those troops there is more of a deterrent to the NKs than whatever you can buy for $3 billion.
I don’t think Israel “needs” American aid these days but its $3 billion dollars they don’t want to lose so they lobby to keep it. I think the aid might have been more important in the 70’s and 80’s but even then, I don’t know if Israel would have collapsed without it.
Bear in mind that Israel is not given a “check” so much as it’s given store credit - most of the money has to be spent on American hardware.
There is no question that the de facto alliance with the US is a major asset to Israel, for the reasons you cite and many others.
The issue I think is whether it is an existential necessity. To my mind, the answer is that it is not.