Comment by r00fus
2 years ago
It happens because there is a $3B annual funding of Israel (which doesn't require a vote!!) which is for weapons-only - consequently most of the funding comes back into the US through defense contractors and lobbying groups like AIPAC. (typical client-state kind of setup which is described more thoroughly in Confessions of an Economic Hitman - freely available on the internet)
These lobbies then reach out to every lever of power and funds Israel friendly politicians (and even ones who are opposed to what Israel does - to neutralize their opposition - google "AIPAC AOC"). These offers of help (carrots) come with threats to primary the politician (sticks) if that politician goes against AIPAC's policies.
The only difference for Israel vs. other client states like Egypt, Japan, etc is the lack of vote required to keep funding going to Israel.
> It happens because there is a $3B annual funding of Israel (which doesn't require a vote!!) which is for weapons-only - consequently most of the funding comes back into the US through defense contractors and lobbying groups like AIPAC
I remember reading a column in an English-language Israeli newspaper (probably Haaretz) – sorry I can't find it now – arguing that US defence funding actually hurt Israel. It isn't that much money in the grand scheme of things (around 0.6% of Israel's GDP) – from a purely financial perspective, Israel could survive fine without it. It comes with all these strings attached, which are basically designed to keep the IDF dependent on the US defense industry, and discourage Israel from developing indigenous replacements for various US military technologies. The greater reliance on US technology, instead of indigenous Israeli replacements, holds back Israel's defense industry, causes Israel to lose out on defense export opportunities (you can't export military technologies you haven't developed), reduces Israel's national sovereignty, and gives the US leverage to use to control the Israeli government (if the US doesn't like some Israeli plan, it will send behind-closed-door threats to delay military supplies that the IDF is dependent upon.) It also sustains a talking point which opponents of Israel can reliably call upon.
The column said that the defenders of this arrangement within the Israeli establishment concede that many of these drawbacks are real, but argue that they are outweighed by the arrangement's biggest benefit – it sends a signal to neighbouring countries that "the US has Israel's back".
> The only difference for Israel vs. other client states like Egypt, Japan, etc is the lack of vote required to keep funding going to Israel.
I think there is another big difference – many Americans (both Jewish and Christian) have an emotional attachment to the US alliance with Israel, which transcends whatever its practical benefits might be; far fewer Americans feel that way about the US alliance with Egypt or Japan.