Military aid deal fits Obama’s pattern by Richard Baehr
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=17207
The United States and Israel have signed a deal that will provide $38 billion in foreign aid for Israel, all of it for defense spending, over a 10-year period beginning in 2017.
This averages out to $3.8 billion per year, which is about $700 million more annually than the $3.1 billion per year Israel received before the deal was signed.
The new agreement includes foreign aid appropriation for the first time, funds for missile defense, which in recent years was an additional appropriation of approximately $500 million, made by Congress on an annual basis. In total, the agreement seems to provide Israel with $200 million more per year, $3.8 billion versus $3.6 billion. It turns out that as the discussions between Israel and the U.S. were taking place, Congress had decided to appropriate $3.4 billion of regular foreign aid, plus an additional $600 million for missile defense in 2017, or $4 billion in total, $200 million higher than the level for 2017 and later years within the framework of the new memorandum of understanding.
The new deal contains a few provisions that are unique and certainly new in the history of U.S. military aid to Israel. One provision the Americans fought hard for was that all of the money allocated to Israel must be spent in the United States. The shift to 100% spending in the U.S. will be gradual: Under the current understanding, Israel was able to convert some 26% of the funds into shekels, to be used for procurement in Israel. Starting in the sixth year, however, that percentage will gradually decline, until by the 10th year Israel will have to spend all the funds in the U.S.
Israel’s chief negotiator, Jacob Nagel, said that if under the current memorandum of understanding some $7.8 billion could be spent in Israel, under the new understanding that number will drop to $5.6 billion. He stressed, however, that this will occur gradually, and that the defense establishment will continue to receive roughly the same amount of money from the U.S. that it has received up to now until 2026, which will give it plenty of time to prepare for the new reality.
The most remarkable provision in the new agreement concerns the limitations on Congress to appropriate any more money for Israel. Congress has the power of the purse, and the president can not send money to any country for foreign aid that Congress does not provide. The new agreement, however, requires Israel to refuse any additional funds that Congress might choose to appropriate for Israel in 2017 and 2018, beyond the memorandum of understanding limit of $3.8 billion per year.
Bloomberg columnist Josh Rogin argues that the limitation is unprecedented: “In an unprecedented arrangement, the White House and the Israeli government have found a way to prevent Congress from increasing U.S. aid for 2017 and 2018. The Israeli government has pledged to return any money given by Congress above the memorandum of understanding levels for those two years.”
The agreement does not provide such “reimbursement of the excess” language for the following eight years, but such a concept for even two years is not sitting well with some members of Congress, who see it as an attempt to shift power from Congress to the White House. If, for instance, Israel were to be drawn into another war with Hezbollah or Hamas in the next two years, Congress would almost certainly seek to provide the assistance Israel might require, beyond the current commitment, particularly for missile defense. The memorandum of understanding allows Israel to ask for more in the event of war, but the definition of a war could become an issue.
In general, there is more bipartisanship in Congress on spending money to help Israel than almost anything else on its table these days. Other issues concerning Israel have, by and large, also been historically bipartisan. Meanwhile, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was unanimously rejected by Republicans and endorsed by 85% of Democrats, a quarter of whom boycotted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress, including Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s current running mate. It is unclear whether opposition to the two-year give-back provision will be one that members of both parties fight, or just the Republicans. One might think that a president pressuring an Israeli prime minister to refuse to accept financial support for his country’s military from Congress, which historically has been more consistently supportive of the U.S.-Israel relationship than the White House), would draw a sharp rebuke from members from both parties.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has already applauded the deal, therefore Congress surely will not be pressured by its lobbyists to oppose it. Congress can do whatever it chooses regarding the budgetary process, and the president can then veto the bill or appropriation if he disapproves. It appears that President Barack Obama was anxious to get this deal done before the upcoming elections in November; certainly before he leaves office. Cynically, it might be his way of telling Israel not to expect more help over the next two years if it becomes involved in a new conflict short of war, particularly one that could threaten the president’s sacred legacy of the Iran nuclear deal. When everyone else will have realized their mistake in trusting Iran, Obama will still be touting the merits of the deal.
Given the high degree of opposition to the Iran deal in every opinion poll conducted since it was first voted on, opposition to it has grown while support has since decreased, the military aid package is something of a counter-measure for Obama, Hillary Clinton, and especially Democrats in Congress to show they are pro-Israel, despite their foolish vote for the nuclear deal, in many cases after heavy pressure from the White House.
For Obama, the memorandum of understanding fits a pattern of ignoring Congress if he does not control it. When the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a large majority in the House, they passed the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), another very flawed piece of the Obama legacy. They also used their large majorities in Congress in Obama’s first two years to pass the Dodd-Frank law on financial reforms and a $1 trillion stimulus package. But when Democrats lost control of the House in 2010, Obama effectively began to ignore Congress and employ executive orders, or administrative law, to advance his agenda. Presidents from one party have often worked well with Congress when one or both houses were under the control of the other party. Ronald Reagan is evidence of that. But Obama’s approach to Congress was always “my way or the highway,” which only worked in his first two years in office, when his party had the majority.
It is Obama’s history of defying the law or ignoring the role of Congress, immigration is another example, that may foment resistance to the new aid agreement, despite its acceptance by the White House, Netanyahu and AIPAC. It is difficult to imagine that those who have already spoken up in protest, such as South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, will have enough allies to prevent it from moving forward.
One might think that both Clinton and Donald Trump, looking ahead to their potential presidencies, would want to preserve flexibility on such an important policy matter. Both candidates have tried creating some distance from Obama’s Israel policy; though it is more difficult for Clinton, who badly needs his help for her crumbling campaign. Clinton was quick to endorse the agreement, suggesting she sees political benefit from it. Trump has so far not offered any commentary, perhaps waiting to see how Congress responds. Even with some congressional discomfort, it is likely this deal will move forward.
Comments are closed.
