The structure of U.S. military aid to Israel is about to change. The only question is whether it’ll change drastically—perhaps even disappear—or whether the contents will change less than the public-relations packaging around it.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared on Erin Molan’s show and her first question was about news that had just broken: a report in Axios that Israel is seeking a 20-year military-aid deal instead of the usual 10-year deal. Barack Ravid reported that the shape of that deal would differ some from past deals: A certain chunk of the money would be spent on joint U.S.-Israel defense-tech development.
Although most of the military aid to Israel is spent in the American defense sector, and is therefore not “aid” in the traditional sense, the post-Trump right has shown signs of wanting to minimize such spending. The new format would be designed to “America First-proof” the aid.
Netanyahu unequivocally shot it down. Forget doubling the lifespan of the next aid deal, he said. It’s time to move in the “exact opposite” direction. Just as Netanyahu was a key driver behind the phasing out of U.S. economic aid to Israel, Bibi said he wants to wean Israel off its dependence on others to whatever extent possible.
“I think that we have a very strong economy,” Netanyahu told Molan. “We have a very strong arms industry. And it’s true that even though we get what we get, which we appreciate, 80 percent of that is spent in the United States. So it produces jobs in the United States. But nevertheless, I’d like to see a much more independent—an even more independent Israeli defense industry.”
That minor correction from “much more independent” to “even more independent” was a reminder that Bibi knows his audience in the U.S. and is aware of the need to appeal to the less-interventionist crowd. He then followed this line of argument a bit further: “And remember that Israel doesn’t ask others to fight for us. Israel is the one American ally in the world that says we don’t need boots on the ground. We don’t need American servicemen fighting, you know, on the ground for Israel or around Israel.
“We’re fine. We fight our own battles. But in doing so, we also serve important American interests like preventing countries that chant ‘death to America’ from having nuclear bombs to throw at America. So my direction is independence. My direction is not greater dependence. My direction is greater independence. And I’ll probably have something to say about that very soon.”
How soon? Well, Bibi said, he was scheduled to have a meeting that very day about planning for the next five years of Israel’s future and beyond.
Five is less than 10, which is less than 20. Again, Netanyahu is conscious of how all this talk might play with the pro-retrenchment crowd.
Where is all this going? As I wrote last year, the Biden presidency marked a turning point for Israel. Biden himself mostly held the line on military aid, but it was clear that he was the last Democratic president willing to take that level of heat from his own party for defending our alliance with Israel.
The real shock was that the more vulnerable Israel seemed to be, the more intense were the calls to cut off the Jewish state from anything it might need to defend itself now or in the future. In the past, U.S. presidents took the position that Israel cannot be allowed to be put in mortal danger by the two countries’ shared enemies. That would be morally repugnant but also strategically reckless. But now, a loud-enough progressive chorus—a minority in the Democratic Party, but an influential one and a growing one—comes right out and declares Israel’s destruction to be a worthy goal.
This changes the calculus. If, in the future, there is going to be an American administration that won’t let Israel break the glass even in case of emergency, then Israel must be prepared for such a moment well in advance. And a domestic weapons production line does not appear overnight. Israel’s survival has long been ensured by a defense establishment constantly peering over the next horizon, and this appears to be no exception.
