Could Israel exist without US aid?

[TriskettheKid]

I see.

So the $68 billion in the '48-'96 entry was nearly completely from 1970-1996?

If so, that would mean we were giving over $3 billion per year for that entire 26 year span.

Hard to say for certain without breakdowns.

But it would mean that if the $68 billion is correct, only about $3-4 of it came from 1948 to, probably, 1973.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hard to say for certain without breakdowns.

But it would mean that if the $68 billion is correct, only about $3-4 of it came from 1948 to, probably, 1973.

If we rely on the figures from both sites and try to reconcile them:

'49-'96:$68 billion total
less '49-'73: $3.1 billion total

means '74-'96: $64.9 billion total or $2.95 billion average per year for that 22 year span.

ETA: Now--are these inflation adjusted figures? If not, then the aid given in that '73-'96 span was significantly higher than more recent years.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is always good to look at the numbers. Israel's budget is around 93bn $. So the extra 2 or three billions are a very welcome addition, but not a critical one.

Ah thanks. That's the info I couldn't find. So we're providing (very roughly) something more than 3% of their annual budget.

 

[Oliver]

yes they could i think

Once a lasting peace is established first, of course. Which makes me wonder why there wasn't much more American pressure on Israel in the past, like sanctions on weapon delivery and financial support, for example.

The answer could be that Israel was seen as some kind of US military outpost during the cold war and afterwards, at least I read that Kissinger allegedly* said something along that line here:

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/world.html


*I couldn't verify the sites claim about Kissinger making that statement

 

[DC]

Once a lasting peace is established first, of course. Which makes me wonder why there wasn't much more American pressure on Israel in the past, like sanctions on weapon delivery and financial support, for example.

The answer could be that Israel was seen as some kind of US military outpost during the cold war and afterwards, at least I read that Kissinger allegedly* said something along that line here:

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/world.html


*I couldn't verify the sites claim about Kissinger making that statement

i even belive they would be able to before a lasting peace is established.
even a war agaisnt several neighbors. they have the best or second best army in the world.

 

[Oliver]

i even belive they would be able to before a lasting peace is established.
even a war agaisnt several neighbors. they have the best or second best army in the world.

Maybe they could survive without a lasting peace, but I doubt they could in the long run. At least it would be a risky path for Israel to go without US support or an well-established peace with it's neighbors.

 

[MikeSun5]

Well, the OP question is regarding the budget (which I'll avoid due to lack of evidence ), but PinkBooties and Parky76 make the big point... our biggest contribution is military - and not just cash.

So to answer the title of this thread: No way. Without American weapons and training, Israel would have been blown to bits years ago.

 

[Travis]

Well, the OP question is regarding the budget (which I'll avoid due to lack of evidence ), but PinkBooties and Parky76 make the big point... our biggest contribution is military - and not just cash.

So to answer the title of this thread: No way. Without American weapons and training, Israel would have been blown to bits years ago.

I don't know, Israel did pretty good when they were using mostly French equipment and got very little US aid.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No I didn't. Please re-read the OP. I made the following parenthetical remark:

Not really, you didn't, since Egypt and Israel are getting that particular bribe from the same sourse. All other sources of aid, much of it from anti Israel factions (Iran, Syria, various donors) to those who oppose Israel, you left out.

So, maybe you ought to read my post, and understand what I was getting at in what your question in the OP omits.

DR

 

[ddt]

If we rely on the figures from both sites and try to reconcile them:

'49-'96:$68 billion total
less '49-'73: $3.1 billion total

means '74-'96: $64.9 billion total or $2.95 billion average per year for that 22 year span.

ETA: Now--are these inflation adjusted figures? If not, then the aid given in that '73-'96 span was significantly higher than more recent years.

I think US aid significantly increased already directly after the Six-Day war in 1967. Too lazy now to look up sources though. A factor in the higher aid in those years may also be that the US propped up Israel during the 1973 war; e.g., the US provided Israel with its planes after the Israeli planes were shot down during the initial Egyptian offensive.

As to the question whether Israel would survive? My hunch is yes. The fact that a large part of that US aid is military is of no significance. Without that aid, Israel would spend (nearly) as much on the military, as security has always been the number 1 issue in Israeli politics. If the US (military) aid would magically stop tomorrow, they'd just save it on other items on the budget, say, on social security (health care? ) - never mind that Israel already has a large percentage of people living below the poverty line.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think US aid significantly increased already directly after the Six-Day war in 1967. Too lazy now to look up sources though. A factor in the higher aid in those years may also be that the US propped up Israel during the 1973 war; e.g., the US provided Israel with its planes after the Israeli planes were shot down during the initial Egyptian offensive.

As to the question whether Israel would survive? My hunch is yes. The fact that a large part of that US aid is military is of no significance. Without that aid, Israel would spend (nearly) as much on the military, as security has always been the number 1 issue in Israeli politics. If the US (military) aid would magically stop tomorrow, they'd just save it on other items on the budget, say, on social security (health care? ) - never mind that Israel already has a large percentage of people living below the poverty line.

It isn't just the money.

If you look at the resupply effort on behalf of Israel that Nixon's administration put forth, money wasn't the critical measure of effectiveness.

DR

 

[WUBRINY63]

I think they could exist without help and I think they should.

 

[ddt]

It isn't just the money.

If you look at the resupply effort on behalf of Israel that Nixon's administration put forth, money wasn't the critical measure of effectiveness.

DR

I'm well aware of that. The speed with which Israel was resupplied was the critical factor, we agree on that.

But did Israel have to pay for those supplies? I'm not sure. If not, it is an important factor in the calculations JoeTheJuggler made about the size of the US aid throughout the years.

 

[The Fool]

Many right wing Israeli extremists wave the "Israel wiped out" thingy when alternatives to their goals of Eretz Israel are discussed. That there are only two options, follow my political goals or we will be wiped out.

There has been no evidence from the past to indicate Israel is or was in danger of being wiped out. Or even put into a position where forced concessions are required. If the US were to withdraw aid this situation would not change, I doubt if it would change even if the US imposed sanctions to attempt to force a right wing Israeli government to accept a Palestinian state.

l

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not really, you didn't, since Egypt and Israel are getting that particular bribe from the same sourse. All other sources of aid, much of it from anti Israel factions (Iran, Syria, various donors) to those who oppose Israel, you left out.

What? I'm speaking of U.S. aid to Israel (and Egypt, since they receive virtually the same huge amount). I'm not addressing how much aid other countries receive from other sources. (And I don't see how that aid is relevant to my question, could Israel exist without U.S. aid?)

By the way, I'm curious why you refer to U.S. aid to Israel and Egypt as a "bribe". What does the U.S. get in return for the bribe?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think US aid significantly increased already directly after the Six-Day war in 1967. Too lazy now to look up sources though. A factor in the higher aid in those years may also be that the US propped up Israel during the 1973 war; e.g., the US provided Israel with its planes after the Israeli planes were shot down during the initial Egyptian offensive.

Without finding specifics, if what you think is right then a big chunk of that pre-1973 $3.1 billion happened in '67. That would mean prior to '67 (and maybe in between the Six-Day War and the 1973 war) the aid was almost nothing.

I'm changing the order of your next comments--

The fact that a large part of that US aid is military is of no significance. Without that aid, Israel would spend (nearly) as much on the military, as security has always been the number 1 issue in Israeli politics. If the US (military) aid would magically stop tomorrow, they'd just save it on other items on the budget, say, on social security (health care? ) -

Yes, that's why I think it's legit just to talk about dollar value of the aid.

never mind that Israel already has a large percentage of people living below the poverty line.

I just looked it up on wikipedia and it says 10.8%, which is a lower rate than we have in the U.S. (wiki says it fluctuates between 12 and 17%). Also, I know for sure the median income in Israel is higher than my income, and I pay income taxes.

As to the question whether Israel would survive? My hunch is yes.

I think I'm leaning to this side, though the people who say no seem pretty sure! 3% of their budget is significant, and I did specify not just survival but survival as recognizably the same nation. Within those limitations I'm not so sure.

At any rate, if the answer is yes, (DarthRotor's use of "bribe" has me thinking of this), why do we do it? We're pretty cash strapped ourselves, so what do we get out of it? Or is it just a matter of placating an American minority position that seems to be beyond criticism?

 

[a_unique_person]

This is a question that's bugged me for a while, and I can't find the information necessary to answer it.

Historically, the U.S. gives more aid to Israel than any other nation, and Israel is not a "developing nation". (Ditto the second place country Egypt--so these questions all apply almost equally to Egypt.)

What bothers me is that the median income (last time I found that info) in Israel is higher than mine, but I still pay income tax, a part of which contributes to this aid.

The figure varies from around $3 billion to $5 billion. Most of the aid is to support the military.

Still, my question is about how large the Israel budget is, and could they exist as recognizably the same nation without US aid?

Here's all I could find by way of a report on Israel's budget (see the pdf linked in this summary page), but I couldn't cipher out an actual size of the budget (what we in the U.S. would call the "Federal budget"), but rather a lot of GDP type of information.

This isn't a loaded question, but a genuine appeal for an answer. Just how significant is our aid to Israel? Even though they are obviously politically sovereign, do we actually underwrite this country?

I think it could exist quite comfortably, but it would have to modify some of it's policies. There is also the MAD aspect, Israel has nukes.

 

[ddt]

Without finding specifics, if what you think is right then a big chunk of that pre-1973 $3.1 billion happened in '67. That would mean prior to '67 (and maybe in between the Six-Day War and the 1973 war) the aid was almost nothing.

I was more thinking that most of it happened during the 1973 war, as US funding only started after the 1967 war. (still too lazy to look for figures though).

I just looked it up on wikipedia and it says 10.8%, which is a lower rate than we have in the U.S. (wiki says it fluctuates between 12 and 17%). Also, I know for sure the median income in Israel is higher than my income, and I pay income taxes.

Interestingly, I found other figures on wiki. Admittedly, the year they were measured may have influence on them. The wiki article on Poverty in Israel gives a poverty incidence of 17.7% of the families and 18.2% of the persons for 1997, comparable numbers to the US (see the table to the right). And from my European perspective, those are huge numbers.

I think I'm leaning to this side, though the people who say no seem pretty sure! 3% of their budget is significant, and I did specify not just survival but survival as recognizably the same nation. Within those limitations I'm not so sure.

The wiki article Economy of Israel states the GDP is 205.7B$, and the state revenues are 68.44B$. So, while we're talking about 3% of the state budget, it's only 1% of the GDP. Every Israeli would be only 1% poorer without the US aid. That suggests me to think they'd handsomely survive without it, and as recognizably the same nation.

At any rate, if the answer is yes, (DarthRotor's use of "bribe" has me thinking of this), why do we do it? We're pretty cash strapped ourselves, so what do we get out of it? Or is it just a matter of placating an American minority position that seems to be beyond criticism?

Israel is considered my many to be a strategic ally of the US in an oil-rich region. AIPAC and the rest of the "Jewish Lobby" don't hesitate to drum on that fact and that the 3% Jewish voters in the US might swing the vote to another candidate - how ludicrous the proposition may be that all Jewish voters would only vote on basis of the Israel policy. But they're quite successful at it; see Mearsheimer's (in)famous article on the "Jewish Lobby" and its aftermath.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Interestingly, I found other figures on wiki. Admittedly, the year they were measured may have influence on them. The wiki article on Poverty in Israel gives a poverty incidence of 17.7% of the families and 18.2% of the persons for 1997, comparable numbers to the US (see the table to the right). And from my European perspective, those are huge numbers.

According the the Wiki article on the Economy of Israel (see table to the right)

Population
below poverty line 10.8% (2005)

Which is lower than the U.S.

I wonder if the different figures maybe count Palestinians or not? That's a dramatic discrepancy. Either that or they've done a good job fighting poverty there in the last 10 years. Still, the U.S.'s figures range between 12 and 17%, so even if the higher figure is accurate, they're not substantially worse off (per capita) than we are. And since we're much more populous, the problem here is far greater in magnitude.

The wiki article Economy of Israel states the GDP is 205.7B$, and the state revenues are 68.44B$. So, while we're talking about 3% of the state budget, it's only 1% of the GDP. Every Israeli would be only 1% poorer without the US aid. That suggests me to think they'd handsomely survive without it, and as recognizably the same nation.

I read somewhere that Israel has a strict cap on how much deficit spending they'll allow (or maybe it's how much debt they'll accrue). Again, if this is true, then it's absurd for the U.S. (already burdened with huge debt) to finance a country that is perfectly capable of raising the revenue themselves.

Israel is considered my many to be a strategic ally of the US in an oil-rich region.

Even if that approach justified what we're doing (and I don't think it does), do those people think Israel would fail without our huge amount of support? If not, then what do we get out of it? (Israel itself does not produce and export oil, right?) Short of a complete failure of the state, I don't buy the argument that Israel "stabilizes" the region.

There's also a bit of circular reasoning here too. If Israel is so stable, why do they need our huge amount of aid? It's not like they're teetering on the brink of collapse (which, if it were so, would undermine--so to speak--the argument that they're a stabilizing influence in the region).

AIPAC and the rest of the "Jewish Lobby" don't hesitate to drum on that fact and that the 3% Jewish voters in the US might swing the vote to another candidate - how ludicrous the proposition may be that all Jewish voters would only vote on basis of the Israel policy. But they're quite successful at it; see Mearsheimer's (in)famous article on the "Jewish Lobby" and its aftermath.

I agree. There's a substantial "Not in My Name" non-Zionist Jewish movement. Jewish voters in the U.S. are certainly not monolithic. But the perception that they are is pretty strong. (See above--even H. Clinton and Obama seem to feel obliged to repeat the mantra "Israel is our ally" every time they mention Israel.)

 

[geni]

By the way, I'm curious why you refer to U.S. aid to Israel and Egypt as a "bribe". What does the U.S. get in return for the bribe?

In the case of egypt a fairly pro-US foreign and domestic policy. It also serves to keep the place as an old fashioned arab dicatatorship rather than something closer to an islamic republic.