How to recover Israel’s national honor and save the US taxpayer billions

Israel’s sometimes impulsive Defense Minister, Avigdor Liberman, was forced to apologize for a statement issued with his approval that compared the Obama Iran deal with the 1938 Munich agreement, which as we know fed Czechoslovakia into the maw of Nazi Germany in a vain attempt to stave off war.

Ha’aretz reported that “the White House was furious. Obama’s senior aides couldn’t understand how, at the very moment when they were negotiating with Israel over the largest military aid package America has ever given any country, the Israeli defense minister could release a statement like that against Obama.”

This is at least the fourth or fifth time – usually it’s because of construction plans in Jerusalem – that Obama and his people have been reported as “furious” with Israel. There are, however, few non-satirical reports of Obama being furious with Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad or even Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. It seems that no country or national leader can ignite White House anger like Israel, Bibi Netanyahu or (now) Liberman.

It’s easy to understand why. We are granted $3 billion each year in military aid, and then we turn around and “spit in Obama’s face” by building apartments in our capital, by having the wrong capital, or by opposing the Iran deal, which, after all, really does have much in common with the Munich agreement.

Israel and its leaders are expected to be subservient, and when an underling doesn’t follow orders, then it is not just wrong, it is insubordinate and insulting. Insubordination provokes anger. Putin, on the other hand, is expected to oppose American interests, so nobody loses their temper when he does what he is supposed to do.

The problem is exacerbated by the increasing “daylight” between the Obama Administration and Israel. But even a more friendly administration would expect to get what it believes it is paying for.

Be aware that with every verbal slap in the face, every lecture from the White House or Secretary of State, every time our Prime Minister is called a ‘chickenshit’ or made to cool his heels while the President has dinner, every time one of our ministers has to grovel in order to be forgiven for making a true statement, every time Obama vents his fury at our country as at a disobedient servant, we lose some of our national honor.

Some people think this is nothing. An apology is just words; don’t we have the strongest army in the Middle East? But they are wrong. National honor is important, nowhere more so than in the Middle East. It is a component of deterrence, along with a powerful air force. A nation without honor is a legitimate target to its enemies, it is not worth defending by its friends, and it is not worth fighting for by its own people.

Our enemies know this, and that’s why they try to humiliate us, to steal our honor, whenever possible – even a bus ride or a handshake at the Olympics is worth exploiting.

But nothing steals honor more than being a whore, that is, someone who allows herself to be humiliated and does things that are opposed to her own sense of self and well-being in order to be paid. A whore has no honor. Zero.

Israel has become a whore for American military aid. For $3 billion a year we are expected to keep our mouths shut about the Iran deal that is going to bring us our next, possibly nuclear, war. We are expected to take seriously the insane idea of withdrawing from Judea and Samaria and allowing them to become a base for terror attacks against the center of our country. We are expected to freeze building in our capital city, while rising prices are driving Jewish residents out. And when we fail to do these things, the administration gets ‘furious’ at us.

There are plenty of good reasons to phase out American military aid. Since most of it (and soon all of it) must be spent in the US, it weakens our home-grown defense industry. It requires us to purchase systems like the F-35 that are unsuitable for our needs, perform poorly or are too expensive (the F-35 seems to be all of these). If you don’t agree, consider whether Israel would embrace the F-35 if it had to spend its own money.

Very significantly, it subverts the decision-making processes in our military chain of command. When our Minister of Defense and Chief of Staff evaluate possible courses of action – to bomb an enemy’s nuclear facilities or not? – it is impossible for them to forget that 20% of their budget comes from the US. Even their opinions on broader political issues can be colored by concern for the funding of their favored projects. This happens not only at the highest levels, but is pervasive throughout the IDF. How could it be otherwise?

Most important, the aid reduces Israel from a sovereign state to a satellite nation. We become subservient both in the political and military arenas to an administration which, increasingly, would just as soon see us disappear. We become a nation without national honor.

But we have options. It is not impossible to cut off the so-called “golden handcuffs.” A gradual phase-out of aid would permit our native defense industry to pick up the slack and soften the blow to the American contractors. There’s no doubt that many items could be produced here at a significant cost saving. We even buy our army’s boots with American aid today – making them in Israel would both save money and return it to our economy. Our expanded military industries would also be capable of increased export business. We don’t need to stop buying from American contractors where they produce the best products. We would simply use our own money to do it.

There would be great opposition to such a plan, from our generals who would have to think a bit outside the box that they have been in for decades, and from the US defense contractors who are the biggest beneficiaries of the aid. But the results would justify the effort. The $3 billion each year could be put to use within the US or even (gasp) be returned to American taxpayers.

It would be good for America – and better for Israel.

This entry was posted in US-Israel Relations. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to How to recover Israel’s national honor and save the US taxpayer billions

  1. Nancy B says:

    I agree with every word. I remember when Obama nixed the cheaper and better made Israeli boots in the previous negotiations. Forcing the American boots on Israel resulted in that Israeli citizen’s livelihood to be put out of business. I was glad when Liberman issued that accurate statement but knew the timing of it would end up requiring an apology. Obama is a predictable enemy at this point. And he is an enemy and not just of Israel but of the American people.

  2. Keefe Goldfisher says:

    You said more precisely what I tried to say two essays back. And Nancy B’s words are exactly right too.

    It’s odd to have a team one always roots for that never wins the big prize in its sport. American Jews who love Israel are frequently like these anguished fans. It’s so ‘obvious’ to outsiders that Israel must follow this prescription of yours… Caroline Glick recommended the same thing last week, and the F-35’s own promoters here know it’s getting foisted on Israel. What does it take to move to this leverage point of saying ‘No’, where the state moves confidently to assert itself… to win. And to have it be done in a fashion that ‘the fans’ see the pride of it. It can’t be done for the nation, and it can’t be done as gesture to woo fans. When comes that day?

  3. Stuart Kaufman says:

    I have been saying this for years. The American dollars that Israel receives cost Israel far more than they are worth to Israel. It is up to Israel to tell Obama to take OUR dollars and shove it. That would be best, not only for Israel, but for the US as well. Obama’s constant attacks on Israel endanger American security. We must all keep in mind that Obama is NOT the United States. That which Obama wants is, in many cases, subversive to the interests of the US. We, the US and Israel, can’t be rid of him soon enough. In the interim, Israel should NOT agree to the new aid package. It would cripple Israel, and be harmful to America’s long term interests.

  4. Shalom Freedman says:

    Perhaps you are right, and it is a mistake for us to take this aid. But I would point out a number of considerations which makes the question less certain than your categorical declaration of its harmfulness.
    Our relationship with the United States is not a matter of military aid alone. As I understand it there is security cooperation on many levels. There is also U.S. diplomatic support.
    The aid which constitutes more than half of the military aid given by the U.S. expresses U.S. support of Israel’s defense and is not first and above all a means of dictating to Israel militarily.
    Is it completely ridiculous to suppose that Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli Defense Establishment might possibly have a reasonable idea of whether this aid is important for Israel’s security.
    PS I also find it deplorable that Israel is singled out for criticism by the U.S Administration. I find it hypocritical , stupid, deplorable and immoral. But is the military aid agreement the major reason for this criticism? I suspect it might have more to do with the fact that the U.S. is time and again the only real defender Israel has against the global diplomatic onslaught.

  5. Shalom:

    I am not saying that Israel should break relations with the US or even stop cooperating in various ways (although I think the x-band radar in the Negev is a bad idea); only that Israel should use its own money.

    If the PM and defense people don’t have an idea of whether the aid is important, then something is wrong that aid or no aid isn’t going to fix!

    I don’t think the aid agreement is the reason for US criticism. The reason is that the present administration is anti-Israel and wants to attack us. The aid just makes it easier for them to do so. As far as defending us diplomatically, that is finished until the US gets a different president. Just yesterday Samantha Power cast doubt on the US vetoing a UNSC resolution “establishing parameters for a 2-state solution.”

Comments are closed.