Foreign Military Financing and Israel
A “Did you know?” Discussion
Did you know that the G.W. Bush administration reached a ten-year agreement in 2007 to provide billions of dollars in “military aid” to the nation of Israel? That agreement covered boatloads of financial aid from fiscal years 2009 through 2018. The funding from that agreement began with $2.55 billion in FY2009, then increased annually until 2013 where the funding remained consistent at $3.15 billion per year through 2018.
Do we have any reason to question the motivations for taxpayer money to be funneled into a foreign nation’s coffers at a rate of over $3 billion each year? Is it reasonable to question what kind of return on investment the American taxpayers are getting?
Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, took this tradition of funding Israel a step further when he agreed to another ten-year funding arrangement to Israel. Here is a summary of that agreement:
The Obama agreement to fund Israel with $38 billion over ten years is the largest such agreement in history, having eclipsed the Bush agreement ten-year value of $30 billion.
Among that $38 billion is $33 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF).
Obama’s agreement includes $5 billion in missile defense assistance.
In practice, the Obama agreement enabled significant updates to the Israel military equipment. The $500 million annual contribution to missile defense was an increase in missile defense support that enabled implementation of long-term visions, an advancement effort that was not previously facilitated by the year-by-year appropriations that Israel was previously receiving for such support. New rules tied to this funding reduced Israel’s ability to spend money on anything other than the military capabilities only available from the U.S.
The expiration of Obama’s agreement is something worth watching. It will, in fact, expire before the end of Trump’s term. Will he recommit billions of American taxpayer dollars to Israel, or will he alter course in an unexpected way?
What is FMF?
Did you know that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (ever heard of that one?) describes Foreign Military Financing as follows?
“The Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended [22 U.S.C. 2751, et. seq.], authorizes the President to finance procurement of defense articles and services for foreign countries and international organizations. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) enables eligible partner nations to purchase U.S. defense articles, services, and training through either [Foreign Military Sales] or, for a limited number of countries, through the foreign military financing of direct commercial contracts (FMF/DCC) program.
“The Secretary of State determines which countries will receive FMF, along with respective FMF amounts. The Secretary of Defense executes FMF programs and issues grants and loans to eligible recipients in accordance with the AECA.
“FMF is a source of financing and may be provided to a foreign country on either a grant (non-repayable) or a direct or guarantee loan basis.”
Got it? FMF is legally sanctioned financing to sell military assets to foreign nations.
Bringing It On Home
Did you know that the very U.S. Code referenced by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency says the following about transferring arms to other nations?
It is the sense of the Congress that the President maintain adherence to a policy of restraint in conventional arms transfers and that, in implementing this policy worldwide, a balanced approach should be taken and full regard given to the security interests of the United States in all regions of the world and that particular attention should be paid to controlling the flow of conventional arms to the nations of the developing world. To this end, the President is encouraged to continue discussions with other arms suppliers in order to restrain the flow of conventional arms to less developed countries.
A policy of restraint? Does anything about giving away $33 billion specifically to spend on weapons/defense systems exemplify a policy of restraint? And please recognize that Obama’s agreement extended through the next two presidential terms.
Did you know that, specifically in the case of Israel, the FMF clause is nothing more than a money-laundering scheme in which money is taken from the U.S. taxpayer and funneled to U.S. weapons manufacturers? This is like the U.S. handing Israel a gift card that can only be spent at the American weapons store. We are literally handing over tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons to a foreign nation.
These Israel-centric funding agreements have been a huge windfall for weapons manufacturers. This is a billion dollar industry that is completely fabricated by policy. Is this why the relationship with Israel is nearly universally supported by lawmakers? These politicians’ campaigns get funded by the military industrial complex and then, as legislators, they compliantly support Israel in return. But that is certainly not the story that they tell. Legislators tell us:
Support for Israel is essential for stability in the Middle East (How is all THAT going?) and as a counter to Russian-aligned Arab states.
Israel is a critical collaborator on intelligence, weapons development, and military exercises and endeavors.
We have historical ties to Israel dating back to post-WWII days.
Support for Israel is support for a fellow democratic nation that is constantly under threat by adversaries to both countries.
Does it seem like the U.S. military aid that Presidents Bush and Obama secured for Israel has enabled Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and human rights violations? Is that what we are really funding?
Do the claims that Israel shares American values — like rule of law and civil liberties — still ring true in light of the admittedly complex issues surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Do civil liberties seem like a priority considering the millions of starving residents of Gaza who are facing an apparently genocide at the hands of Israel?
Do any of these considerations raise questions about the nearly unanimous bipartisan support for providing free weapons to Israel?
What are we really getting in return? If it truly is valuable to the U.S., then it should be easy enough to explain. And our current president, who is trying to convince us that he is the most transparent president ever, should be the one to explain it. Just lay it out there! We can take it!
Speaking of President Trump, recall that he was the first U.S. president in recent memory to make any meaningful progress toward a peaceful Middle East during his first term. Is it coincidental that he then faced censorship and unprecedented legal prosecution? Is it any surprise that the corrupt system wanted to sideline the guy so that he could not facilitate further peace in this region that we have spent so many billions to keep unstable?
Speaking further of President Trump, did you know that he just concluded a whirlwind trip to the Middle East? During one speech, he provided this little nugget about how certain areas of the region were experiencing rapid development:
“It is crucial for the wider world to note, this great transformation [of the developing Middle Eastern countries] has not come from Western interventionists… with lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation-builders,’ neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here, the people that have lived here all their lives.”
Well, that is a new tone for an American president to take! He went on:
“I’m here today not merely to condemn the past chaos of Iran’s leaders, but to offer them a new path and a much better path toward a far better and more hopeful future… I want to make a deal with Iran. If I can make a deal with Iran, I’ll be very happy. We’re gonna make your region and the world a safer place. But if Iran rejects this olive branch and continues to attack their neighbors, then we will have no choice but to inflict massive maximum pressure.”
Is Iran deserving of that olive branch? Many would say they are not. Is Trump actually taking the high road with Iran? That is not at all what we were told he would do! A detente with Iran could have such meaningful ripple effects: reduced risk of war in the unstable region, stabilized oil market volatility, a reigning in of the refugee crisis from the region, reduced tensions around the globe. These factors would open the door for broader cooperation in the region, especially among those who have interests there (European nations, Russia, China). In the U.S. and in other affected countries, military spending could be deprioritized, which means resources could go toward other pressing needs. We have seen the start of this with the Abraham Accords in the form of increased regional trade, tourism, and investment. Extending the accords offers the hope of reduced conflict and a stronger interdependence of the nations in the region.
Trump wasn’t done blowing minds with his speech:
“I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness.”
Ending sanctions that have been in place since the 1970’s? Wow! Who saw that coming? He also added:
“As I have shown repeatedly, I am willing to end past conflicts and forge new partnerships for a better and more stable world, even if our differences may be very profound.”
There is ample evidence that Trump’s foreign policy to this point as it pertains to Israel is not much different from past Democrat and Republican presidents (although recent evidence suggests he may be changing course). Then again, there is fresh evidence of a shift in U.S.-Israel policy. We should stay tuned!
In light of the wars perpetuated by those presidents and Trump’s track record of deescalating wars, is it time to buy into his claims that he actually wants “a better and more stable world”? Consider that he remains the only president in decades to avoid dragging the U.S. into a major military conflict. Consider the Abraham Accords. Hasn’t Trump already done more to promote peace and prosperity in the Middle East than any president in generations?
It is important to have some vision of the economic domino effect. Stability, especially in the Middle East, helps manage energy prices, which directly affect inflation and cost of living at home. Enabling a de-prioritization of spending on defense can allow prioritization of more significant investment into infrastructure and healthcare as well as a focus on reducing the national debt. Peace agreements boost the positive global influence of the U.S. and can promote at least some unity to the polarized opinions. More stability globally brings more security at home by lessening the threats of terror attacks and cyberattacks while also providing a check on the strain that immigration/refugee challenges place on the domestic systems of Western nations. These are all steps toward bringing people together. Is there not hope in that?
The mainstream media would have you believe all sorts of terrible things about Donald Trump and his policies. He is Hitler (just the kind of Hitler that seems to work with Jews rather than tries to exterminate them). You can almost set your watch by the frequency in which they call him either a racist or a fascist. They tell us he is only in this for his own benefit and profit. Why is it then that on the global stage he has been so successful thus far at being hands down the most peaceful and stabilizing president in generations? And just ask yourself what obstacles exist for that success to translate to more peace and stability at home (we suggest it might have everything to do with the information and rhetoric that the public is digesting).
Trump seems to keep racking up wins that are good for the Meet Me in the Middle kind of folks out there.
What more wins are to come?