It would indeed maintain the balance of power between Israel and its neighbours. But it would do nothing for what I conceive is one of the most important purposes of the aid from the US perspective - to help maintain stable governments, by supporting the existing governments, in Israel’s neighbours.
The way I see it (going by the stated intent of the aid), the purpose is this: in order for there to be peace in the region between Israel and its neighbours, there is a need for government stability in Egypt and Jordan. This stability is precarious - remember the assasination of Sadat, and the “Black September” rebellion in Jordan - so we (“we” meaning the US government) should, in our interests, give these countries aid and military support.
Israel does not need aid & military support to insure internal stability - like Egypt, Israel has had assasins, but the chances are less likely that assasins & the like will fataly disrupt the government.
However, if we give aid & military support to Israel’s neighbours, to aid in internal stability, we upset the balance of power between Israel & her neighbours. In order to counteract this effect, we must provide aid to Israel in approximately equal amounts.
But we don’t. In FY04, Israel got $2.62 billion, Egypt got 1.87 billion, and Jordan got .56 billion. On a per capita basis, each Israeli got $369, each Egyptian got $25, and each Jordanian got $97. Cite.
? Seems to me to be “approximately equal” - 2.62 vs. 2.43 (+ whatever was given to the Palistinians).
I don’t understand the relevance of the “per capita” calculation. Surely if the issue is balance-of-power, the relevant figure is the total spending per side, not spending per capita. When armies clash, what is important is their power relative to each other - not their power relative to the size of their population!
It took me a minute to figure out you were adding here. And I’m still not buying your “approximately equal” argument. Think of it this way – it basically takes two countries (Egypt and Jordan) to add up to what one country (Israel) gets. Not equal to me, and I doubt it feels equal to Egypt or Jordan.
Looking at things on a per capita basis reflects the fact that the money isn’t just used to buy a certain amount of military might – it’s used for other stuff, and in fact, the principle of fungibility means that it doesn’t matter whether it’s “military” money or any other kind. Another way to look at it is that each Israeli gets an annual gift of nearly $400 from the American taxpayer. Rather a lot, don’t you think, given that Israel is a wealthy country?
You can see I’m not believing your argument about buying military parity in the region. The best way to accomplish that, of course, would be to give them all nothing.
Not a sarcastic question at all, but are you familiar with the history of conflict in the region? A common pattern of warfare is for several of Israel’s neighbours to take on Israel at any one time - Egypt, Syria and Jordan being the prime canadates. The only sensible way of approaching power-balance in the region is “all of Israel’s potential enemies” on one side and “Israel” on the other.
I myself do not have any way of knowing how “military” spending is allocated or accounted for, but I severely doubt that a country may simply spend it ony anything - military or non. For example, it may be in the form of actual military equipment or the like, which is not particularly fungible. In any event, the most serious consequence of aid is that it be spent on military spending, as intended. Allocating cash on a per-capita basis would obviously be to Israel’s detriment, as its population is much, much smaller than that of its potential enemies in the region!
I’m not fussed by the notion that Israel (or anyone) is getting a “gift” (I note in passing that neither you nor anyone else seems upset at the notion of giving “gifts” to Egyptians and Jordanians). The question under analysis is whether the money is being spent on some legitimate foreign-policy goal, or simply provided to appease a domestic lobby.
I agree that the best way to achieve “parity” would be to give them both nothing. See my post immediately above your previous reply. The point, as I have said before, is not simply to achieve parity - but to support friendly regimes while at the same time ensuring that this support does not upset the balance of power.
In summary, if the US gave nothing to anyone, Israel would be exactly as militarily dominant as it is now (that is, parity would be achieved); but those friendly regimes (Egypt and Syria, but not Israel) would in theory be rendered more unstable, and potentially less friendly & more aggressive.
While this theory may not be convincing to you, I note that it makes more sense to look for a reasonable explaination for a country acting in its own self-interest before assuming that it is motivated to behave irrationally by an unpatriotic domestic lobby. In any event, how could anyone seriously believe that thesis when Israel’s neighbours are getting as much as Israel? There is no “Egyptian and Jordanian” lobby in the US I’m aware of.
Sure, but that last happened in 1973 – a generation ago, and all the leaders from that day are dead, as is the kind of pan-Arabism that would even make a Syrian-Egyptian-Jordanian combo possible. Plus, countries don’t think of themselves in the way you’re suggesting. They never say to themselves, “Well, I’d look pretty good, so long as I throw my neighbor in with me” – as in Mexico saying, “Well, my infant mortality statistics are pretty bad… but if I include the U.S. in my calculation, I look pretty good!” What I’m saying is that Egypt and Jordan don’t consider themselves as getting as much as Israel – because they don’t, in plain fact.
What I mean is each dollar in “military” aid means one dollar less that a country has to spend out of its own resources on its military. So the dollar saved can be spent on anything.
The goal of maintaining Middle East peace may be laudable, but there needs to be more discussion of the means to that end. For instance, one could discuss the price the U.S. pays for its clear favoritism toward Israel, not just in their being the number-one destination for our foreign aid, but in all the other ways we favor them, as pointed out in the article cited in the OP.
So why not give Israel nothing, but keep giving to Egypt and Jordan (as I think you meant)? Save us a couple billion dollars a year, that would, and make us look a little friendlier to the people we’re trying to win over.
Quite – but let’s look at self-interest through a somewhat wider lens. Is our self-interest served by what’s happening in Iraq? How about Iran? How about Afghanistan? Does our unbridled support for Israel have any impact on those situations? Of course it does – and even if you don’t see it, the Arab Street, so-called, does.