Does the IDF buy much of anything from the US other than aircraft?
This is true. A lengthy war would bankrupt Israel and exaust its supplies.
However, that effect would be balanced by the fact that all of Israel’s potential enemies would be similarly affected.
The situation during the cold war was anomalous. At that time, the Arabs counted on the Soviets for resupply; the US decided to fill the same role for Israel, as a matter of great power balance.
Without an analogue to the Soviets, Israel’s potential enemies would be in the same boat as it - going cash in hand to third parties for resupply.
Humvees, AA systems, artillery I think, as well as trucks and other random logistical stuff.
They are required by the terms of the grant to use something like 75% of that cash for US purchases. And that 25% leeway is I understand considered an execeptional indulgence.
I imagine so. I guess it’s not really that bad a term, considering the breadth of available US weaponry.
Certainly - if I was handing over billions in aid, I’d want it “tied” too. As you say, it is small hardship, as US weapons are highly regarded.
Of course Israel also has a highly-regarded weapons & electronics industrial sector, but for obvious reasons it cannot be capable of the same breadth as that of the US.
Oh yeah, that’s right. Good point.
Depending on the arab states you are talking about, one side would run out of cash faster.
If only we could do for our non-military manufacturing industry what we have done for our military manufacturing inductry…
We don’t give enough foreign aid to make a significant difference in our non-military manufacturing industries.
It’s worth noting that Japan does exactly that, though. They give a huge amount of foreign aid relative to GDP, more than anyone but a few European states, but nearly all of it takes the form of (Japanese-made) industrial supplies. Cranes, turbines, road grades and so on.
Well, Israel’s likely enemies are its immediate neighbours - Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt - none of which are really financial powerhouses at this moment.
[Though ironically enough, in its past wars its most dangerous enemy has been Jordan, whose well-trained and solderly Arab Legion was (and I assume still is) the only military force the Israelis really feared to face on a one-on-one basis in battle.]
The Saudis and Emirates have plenty of money of course, but they have historically been unwilling to act as cash cows for these countries - for internal political reasons: Egypts’ past adventurism in Yemen of course did not help.
I alos think they’d be wary of getting dragged into a hot military conflict - the source of that wealth is very vulnerable to attack. Too little to gain, too much to lose.
There is that. Plus of course war and instability is very bad for the ruling class of what are, all said and done, something of an anacronism in this day and age - kingdoms run by actual kings. There is a reasonable fear that some nationalist or religious demagogue would sieze the opportunity to overthrow them.
I wonder if the US aid will be scaled back, if Israel becomes a big exporter of natural gas? Israel is a propserous, modern country that is surrounded by poor countries (most of them run by reactionary regimes).
If the region is ever to become peaceful, Israel’s neighbors must become less corrupt and build their economies up. Frankly, I don’t see Egypt ever doing this.
We’ve already been over this RNATB. When you’re wrong, pretending that someone hasn’t read the cite that’s proving you wrong is… odd. Although I can touch on your rather amusing new dodge if you really want.
Unable to accept how thoroughly wrong you are, you’re now actually claiming that three billion in military aid is totaly unlike three billion in aid plus actual physical troops for military aid. It doesn’t count and, oooh look, shiny!
You’re not fooling anybody.
But you are providing a very good example of the shit that normally goes on in such debates. Proven wrong, and that another nation gets the same dollar amount of military aid that Israel gets, plus tens of thousands of US soldiers themselves, you try to spin it so hard that your argument has become gyroscopically stable. Nice one, that.
I suspect it will become more like the “aid” provided to the Saudis, who of course do not lack for cash - enhanced access to high-end military hardware, but less in the form of actual fiscal credits.
Finn, relax. This thread has so far been remarkably civil for an Israel thread.
Quite relaxed.
But this is the point, and generally the reason that debates turn into tedious fact checking. Even blatant factual errors won’t be retracted if they serve a narrative. RNATB’s is that Israel receives more in military aid than any other nation in the world receives in military aid plus every form of aid (other than Iraq). Faced with the fact that, no, South Korea gets an equivalent amount of military aid plus we actually commit our troops directly, first he claims he was talking about general aid and not military aid, then he claims it doesn’t count unless we also give troops to Israel to use, then he claims that it simply doesn’t count because, well, because. So it may be a civil sort of deliberate factual mangling, but this is the general problem. Instead of simply saying “whoops, I was wrong, guess the claim I was using to make my point is in error”, we get this pattern.
When facts are deliberately discarded because they don’t meet the narrative, we’ve left the cause of fighting ignorance for the cause of trying to sell it.
Addressing the OP:
It is difficult to assess the situation. The US helps Israel militarily to maintain a level of parity in the region. Some of the aid is tied to corresponding aid given to Egypt, sometimes on the basis of US interests in the region, and sometimes as an indirect means of feeding money into our own arms manufactures. The relationship between the US and Israel has not always been one of mutual defense. Among other things, the US has tended to prevent Israel from finishing their enemies, and the USS Liberty sinking is at least an indication of an unclear level of US military support in 1967. The US sometimes supports Israel’s enemies during times of conflict. Without US intervention, Israel would control a triangle encompassing Cairo, Amman, and Beirut.
There have been comments that Israel would not be able to support the current size and strength of its military without US aid, but the need to have that military size and strength is based on the threat to them, which in itself is based on Israel’s ability to defend against that threat. So IMHO, the question is based on a circular definition of ‘dependent’.
Indeed. A good part of that spending goes towards Israel not blowing people up. Like staying out of Gulf 1, and not bombing the hell out of Iran now. Both were in its relative short-term interest.