I read about this a month or so ago and didn't want to believe it.
Public Support for Aid to Israel Dropping? No Problem! Make it a Legal Mandate!
Now, with U.S. political support for sending military funding to Israel dropping off sharply, Congress is considering phasing out the financial commitment and instead undertaking a far more integrated defense and technology partnership built around legally mandated defense industrial cooperation between the two nations.
Both the House and Senate have included such a proposal in the annual defense policy bill, laying the groundwork for melding U.S. and Israeli defense and intelligence capabilities in profound ways that some critics find alarming.
Trump and Netanyahoo are pushing for the shift, which comes as lawmakers on the right and left have grown increasingly hostile to sending taxpayer dollars to Israel’s military.
Supporters argue the move would benefit the United States, allowing it to capitalize on Israel’s defense and intelligence innovations. They say it would elevate the U.S.-Israel relationship from one of donor and recipient to a strategic partnership.
THAT is the motivation! To "elevate" Israel from vassal status!
But some lawmakers fear that such deep ties could blur the lines between supporting an ally and effectively allowing Israel’s military to become intertwined with the Pentagon in ways that could be dangerous and difficult to unwind.
The United States and Israel already partner to produce defense technologies...The defense policy bill, which passed the House last month and is awaiting action in the Senate, would enshrine those partnerships in law.
The House measure would create an office in the Defense Department that would be legally required to facilitate cooperation between the United States and Israel.
A separate intelligence bill that is expected to be merged with the defense legislation would call on the president and the director of national intelligence to “expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the government of Israel,”
Why is Congress considering this now?
The [old] memorandum, which mandates that the United States provide $3.8 billion a year in military aid to Israel, ends in 2028, and lawmakers in both parties have said they would oppose a new deal based on billions of dollars in direct aid to Israel.
See? Members of Congress "oppose" a new deal based on the old, so under the current proposal they won't have to vote against military aid to Izvassal!
[Passing the new bill] would provide extraordinarily valuable support to Israel and its military and intelligence service without explicitly requiring Congress to sign off on sending a set amount of federal money to Jerusalem each year.
TOLDJA!
The idea has gained traction as the future of traditional U.S. military assistance to Israel has become increasingly uncertain following a backlash to Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza.
The push also stems from Mr. Netanyahoo’s public campaign to appear less reliant on U.S. military aid ...
Why has the proposal generated controversy?
Opponents argue that the idea would give too much control over sensitive U.S. defense matters to a foreign nation.
Ooh, a NYT reporter said that out loud. Hope Robert Jimison is okay.
"The U.S. government can always choose on a case-by-case basis to enter into joint production agreements,” Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in an interview. “What’s sort of jaw-dropping about this is that it mandates it.”
With Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, [lameduck Congressman] Massie attempted to strip the provision from the defense bill. But the two lawmakers were blocked by Republican leaders from bringing the matter to a vote.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, warned in a social media post that the proposed partnership would “merge parts of our military with the IDF,” referring to the Israel Defense Forces. She warned that such a move would be “an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy.”
AOC! AOC! AOC!
Defense industrial partnerships are a key feature of the U.S. relationship with close allies, including Britain, Australia, Canada and NATO partners. But the new proposals would establish one of the broadest such partnerships with Israel, with which the United States does not share any formal mutual defense treaty.
Van Hollen and other critics argue that the mandated joint production provision could constrain the United States militarily. He pointed to Israel’s repeated objections to transferring Iron Dome air defense batteries to Ukraine after Russia’s invasion, out of concern that the weapons could fall into the hands of Russia, be delivered to Iran, then used against Israel.
“The one precedent that we have is the Iron Dome co-production agreement, where the government of Israel did exercise that authority,” Mr. Van Hollen said. “That should be a very cautionary tale.”
%201.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
