When Gideon Israel, then a student, first raised the idea 14 years ago of giving up US aid, everyone involved in the field thought he was delusional.
"US aid has served as leverage for political, economic and security pressure. Israel is required to purchase American military equipment that does not always meet its needs. Israeli defense industries are restricted in development and in sales to foreign countries. The aid has fueled an arms race and creates an image of Israel as a dependent state, harming national resilience at home and its diplomatic standing abroad," Israel argued at the time. Back then he was a new immigrant from the US and a student at the College for Statesmanship. Today he is a US affairs expert.
Instead of "aid," his proposal was for "a new framework of cooperation, including a gradual reduction of aid and the conversion of parts of it into research and development programs." A decade and a half after he put these ideas in writing, his "crazy" notion is becoming Israeli policy. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with The Economist that the aid would be gradually reduced over the coming decade until it reached zero. Indeed, for several weeks now Israeli and American teams have been discussing the format of the next decade-long agreement between the two countries.
Beyond 'aid'
One of the starting points of these talks is that, for the first time in 50 years, there will be a shift from "US aid" to a framework of "cooperation." What does that mean? It is a good question. The discussions are only at an early stage, and participants are not volunteering details. Moreover, the familiar headline about American "aid," repeated for decades, is misleading. In reality, this is a very worthwhile economic investment for the side putting up the money, namely America.
According to very conservative calculations, the 3.8 billion dollars the US allocates to Israel each year are worth more than 8 billion dollars to the American economy. A more reasonable estimate puts the figure at 15.5 billion dollars, according to a study by the Mind Israel institute. US affairs expert Yoram Ettinger cites far higher numbers and argues that the benefit to the US reaches as much as 48 billion dollars a year. Whatever the exact figure, it is important to remember that the American money is currently earmarked for purchases from US industries.
In other words, the administration injects the money into the American economy, and Israel is merely the conduit that benefits from the transfer. The current aid agreement, which expires in 2028, was signed under a Democratic president who was often difficult for Israel, Barack Obama. He and his team found this investment highly worthwhile for America. Why? Because in the end, aircraft such as the F-35s that the Pentagon funds for Israel support many American jobs and, most importantly, strengthen US security.
It is doubtful whether this benefit can be quantified. How much money did we save America by wounding the regime that tried to assassinate its president, calls it the "Great Satan" and calls us the "Little Satan"? What is the numerical value of the positive reputation earned by American weapons systems as a result of the successful operational use made of them by the Israel Defense Forces? And how much money did Israeli ingenuity save the Americans through the development of systems such as the Arrow missile defense, Iron Dome and the Iron Beam laser system?
These are all defensive systems that the US tried to develop for decades without real success. That is without even mentioning the operational battlefield experience that Israel shares with America, which also cannot be assessed in purely economic terms.
These examples, and they are far from the only ones, only proves why it makes far more sense to redefine what is called American "aid" as a framework of cooperation. First and foremost, because that is the reality. US national security is significantly strengthened as a result of this "aid" to Israel.
Second, it is hard to explain to the average American why his taxes should fund the security of a "global power," as Netanyahu defines Israel. The two ideas simply do not sit well together. The old joke from the 1960s about "poor Samson," as Prime Minister Levi Eshkol once described, no longer works.
No handouts
Anyone following the mood in the US can see that moving from "aid" to "cooperation" is the need of the hour. Israel's image in American public opinion was damaged even before the war, and even more so during it. A bold step of giving up the money would only benefit Israel. At a time when America is feeling economic strain and turning inward, Israeli restraint would be interpreted as a friendly and credible move.
It would also immediately deprive extremists in both parties of antisemitic insinuations about Jews taking money from the gentile. Beyond that, the move would project to the world the message that Israel stands on its own feet and is no longer holding out a hand for donations. As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, and Israel approaches its 80th year of independence, especially after the horrific October 7 massacre, this is the right message at the right time, at home and abroad.
