Could Israel exist without US aid?

[JoeTheJuggler]

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?

[Pink Booties]

My guess, and it's only a guess: aside from enemies all around... Israel could not exist without tons of aid in money and weaponry from the US.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Why should that matter? Their median income should be irrelevant, the relevant factor should be whether or not the benefits are worth it. I'd give aid to Lichtenstein if the benefit was worth it.

Quote:

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

Sure. They'd likely have to be much more ham-fisted in dealing with their enemies (precision munitions are expensive, dumb bombs are cheap), but I don't see why not. Furthermore, they would probably find themselves a new sponsor. China is always on the lookout for new military technology, and Israel has expertise they could sell. Would they get as much as they're getting now from us? Probably not. Would they get enough assistance to get by? Yes, I imagine they would.

[DC]

yes they could i think

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why should that matter? Their median income should be irrelevant, the relevant factor should be whether or not the benefits are worth it. I'd give aid to Lichtenstein if the benefit was worth it.

Benefit to whom?

Rolfe.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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?

Probably not, but you unfortunatly left vacant in this question the forms of aid to Israel's opponents in the region. The influence that would have on Israel's condition or survival is non-trivial.

For a few decades there, Israel and various opponents played for the US and the USSR rivalry. The eventual peace agreeement Israel/Egypt changed that profoundly.

DR

[DC]

and isnt much of that aid spend on US manufactured stuff? wich still you pay but get it partially back by work.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Benefit to whom?

Wrong question. The right question is according to whom are the benefits worth it. The difference matters, as consideration of 3rd world aid demonstrates. And the answer to that is obviously whoever is giving the aid in question.

[parky76]

I believe Israel would do just fine without $3 billion a year in US military aid.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Wrong question. The right question is according to whom are the benefits worth it. The difference matters, as consideration of 3rd world aid demonstrates. And the answer to that is obviously whoever is giving the aid in question.

Nice dodge, but you still didn't quantify the benefit.


To the OP: No idea, but leaning toward possibly not.

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by parky76

I believe Israel would do just fine without $3 billion a year in US military aid.

Amazingly, I get to agree with Parky76. Almost, as I believe that the aid is not $3 billion yet. (It is supposed to grow from 2 to 3$ bn over several years. Can't remember how soon.)

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. (They actually come with buy back conditions which forces Israel to expend most of it in the US. Some on the expense of the local industry.)

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by GreNME

Nice dodge, but you still didn't quantify the benefit.

Why should I? It's irrelevant to my point. I am making no claim about whether or not the benefits are worthwhile. That is a topic on which there is considerable disagreement (which is no surprise since it involves not only speculation but also subjective value judgments), and one I have no interest in pursuing at the moment.

[parky76]

Plus, Egypt gets an almost identical amount as Israel gets. It was Carter's way of bribing Israel and Egypt into making peace.

In 2004, Iraq got the most aid with 18.44 billion, Israel was next with 2.62 billion, then Egypt with 1.87 billion, and then Afghanistan with 1.77 billion.

[Doctor Evil]

Originally Posted by parky76

Plus, Egypt gets an almost identical amount as Israel gets. It was Carter's way of bribing Israel and Egypt into making peace.

If I try to imagine the logic behind this, the real-politic seem to have been as follows. Egypt had to be bribed to break away from the USSR and become a US ally. But the peace deal had Israel returning a large parcel of territory and thus taking a security risk. So Israel was offered more military aid than Egypt to make the risk taking easier.

Now one may argue whether that deal should have had an expiry date. That is not for me to say. I would say that through the aid the US gain influence on both countries, helping the administrations to stabilize the middle east. (Which they have done to a great extent. The last full scale, multi-country, war was in 1973.)

[TriskettheKid]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have estimates of Soviet aid to the area? And subsequent Russian aid?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

Almost, as I believe that the aid is not $3 billion yet. (It is supposed to grow from 2 to 3$ bn over several years. Can't remember how soon.)

Not according to the information I've found. (I suppose it depends on different definitions of "U.S. Aid".)

See Table 2 Recent Aid to Israel in this report prepared for Congress by the Library of Congress.

Just the "total" column says:

1949-1996: $68 billion
1997: $3.1 billion
1998: $3.08 billion
1999: $3 billion
2000 $4.1 billion
2001: $2.87 billion
2002 (est.) $2.8 billion

So, over the years, it certainly has been at $3 billion and beyond.

In stark contrast, this site, the Jewish Virtual Library, says,

Quote:

Israel has received more direct aid from the United States since World War II than any other country, but the amounts for the first half of this period were relatively small. Between 1949 and 1973, the U.S. provided Israel with an average of about $122 million a year, a total of $3.1 billion (and actually more than $1 billion of that was loans for military equipment in 1971-73) . Prior to 1971, Israel received a total of only $277 million in military aid, all in the form of loans as credit sales.

Frankly, I think the figures from the first source are more credible since I've seen them repeated in more places.

It looks like maybe the second source is not counting military aid? Or are they claiming perhaps that other places are improperly counting loans or credit sales as "aid"?

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Not according to the information I've found. (I suppose it depends on different definitions of "U.S. Aid".)

See Table 2 Recent Aid to Israel in this report prepared for Congress by the Library of Congress.

Just the "total" column says:

1949-1996: $68 billion
1997: $3.1 billion
1998: $3.08 billion
1999: $3 billion
2000 $4.1 billion
2001: $2.87 billion
2002 (est.) $2.8 billion

So, over the years, it certainly has been at $3 billion and beyond.

In stark contrast, this site, the Jewish Virtual Library, says,

Frankly, I think the figures from the first source are more credible since I've seen them repeated in more places.

It looks like maybe the second source is not counting military aid? Or are they claiming perhaps that other places are improperly counting loans or credit sales as "aid"?

Both are correct.

Prior to the 1970s, Israel did not receive as much aid. The figures really were that low.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why should that matter? Their median income should be irrelevant, the relevant factor should be whether or not the benefits are worth it.

What got me thinking in these terms most recently was this thread and the objection to health insurance reform based on claims that it's "socialism" or at least unfair transfer of wealth.

That is, not simply a pragmatic cost/benefit analysis (since we're not allowed to do that wrt to health care, otherwise we'd have to say there should be no consideration of running up debt in the interest of saving lives), but an ideological principle against transfer payments.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Probably not, but you unfortunatly left vacant in this question the forms of aid to Israel's opponents in the region.

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

Quote:

Ditto the second place country Egypt--so these questions all apply almost equally to Egypt.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

Both are correct.

Prior to the 1970s, Israel did not receive as much aid. The figures really were that low.

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.

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

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]

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

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]

Originally Posted by DC

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]

Originally Posted by Oliver

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]

Originally Posted by DC

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by ddt

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]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

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]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

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]

Originally Posted by ddt

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--

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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).

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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]

Originally Posted by ddt

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)

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

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.