Follow us on social


Any new US aid to Israel should prioritize peacebuilding, not more weapons

American taxpayers already replenish the country’s defenses; we should rethink how any additional assistance is used.

Analysis | Middle East

In 2016, the Obama administration negotiated a memorandum of understanding with the Israeli government that pledged a historic and unprecedented $38 billion of security aid over 10 years. The figure of $3.8 billion per year was not arbitrarily chosen nor did it reflect a simple bump up from previous level of $3.1 billion in annual assistance. It was carefully calculated by the Obama administration after a thorough assessment of Israel's real defense needs.

As a result of that deliberative, fact-based process, the MOU now in effect contains a specific pledge of $500 million every year for missile defense alone, included specifically in response to tragically frequent outbreaks of violence and rocket attacks in the years since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip. The Obama administration calculated and pledged this new and additional assistance specifically to cover future outbreaks of violence in which Israel would need to rely on and replenish missile defense systems vitally important to protecting Israelis like Iron Dome, so that Israel would not have to come back to the U.S. government seeking extraordinary appropriations as it did in 2014.

It is therefore surprising that some in the Israeli government are reportedly seeking as much as an additional $1 billion — on top of the amounts pledged in the MOU — for the exact resupply of materiel already contemplated and covered by the MOU. Some reports have suggested that a portion of a possible request may be to cover the cost of additional munitions such as precision guided bombs as well.

The relevant question in considering such a request isn’t whether Iron Dome or generous U.S. assistance to help cover its costs is a worthy expenditure — the pledge in the MOU and unfailing annual appropriations rightly and definitively answer those in the affirmative. Rather, the question is whether a wealthy country like Israel actually needs an additional $1 billion from a partner already struggling to meet the myriad needs of its own citizens in difficult times to pay for it.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has publicly stated the Biden administration’s commitment to ensuring Israel is able to replenish Iron Dome and that the details are currently under review. The process of making good on this promise provides an opportunity for a real discussion about what the United States’ existing commitments are and what its priorities should be for any additional funding.

The current MOU specifically states that, “Based upon their comprehensive discussions, both sides jointly commit to respect the missile defense funding levels specified in this MOU, and Israel commits not to seek additional missile defense funding from the United States for the duration of this understanding, except in exceptional circumstances as may be jointly agreed” by both countries. It’s a tragic reality that as horrifying as the loss of life in last month’s violence was, rounds of fighting between Israel and Hamas are not exceptional and are often even more deadly and destructive, which is precisely why the current MOU contains an unprecedented commitment of U.S. missile defense aid to Israel. What is exceptional would be the amount of new assistance given to a country with as much ability to pay for its own additional military needs as Israel.

With so many important national security and foreign policy funding priorities — not to mention domestic needs — nearly $4 billion in annual aid is already a generous contribution by U.S. taxpayers to a country with a per capita GDP higher than each of France, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The additional $1 billion Israel will reportedly request would, to put it in context,  be more than the United States spends on Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism & Demining Assistance globally ($890 million in Fiscal Year 2021), and more than twice what the U.S. government spends on each of direct contributions to NATO ($420 million in 2019) and on the entire Peace Corps ($410.5 million in FY2020). It would be more than three times what the Veterans Administration spends on veterans suicide prevention programs ($310 million in FY2021).

If U.S. taxpayers were to spend an extra $1 billion to help secure Israel from Hamas rockets and other acts of terrorism on top of existing support for its missile defense systems, a priority for additional funding should be programs that address the root causes of the cycle of violence and help erode Hamas’s power. Bold but practical plans to rebuild Gaza’s infrastructure and economy in a way that will empower ordinary Palestinians in the territory rather than Hamas, such as the Center for a New American Security’s proposal, lay waiting to be taken off the shelf and implemented. Peace-building programs that undermine extremism through people-to-people and other civil society initiatives could and should be prioritized for substantial new funding through an international fund for peace based on the Northern Ireland model and envisioned by the historic, bipartisan Middle East Partnership for Peace Act.

The massive gap between what the United States invests in addressing the situation underlying the conflict and what it spends trying to remediate the violence that results from its perpetuation becomes especially clear in light of the fact that a modest $75 million in relief for Palestinians already appropriated by Congress is currently being held up by Republican lawmakers under the guise of supporting Israel’s security. The Biden administration and congressional majorities must break this unconstructive cycle and give due priority in U.S. funding to countering the deepening occupation and other catalysts for unending conflict. Ultimately, there is no military solution to the conflict, and addressing its root causes is the only way to prevent further rounds of rocketfire and other violence.

At the same time, the Israeli government should understand that even strong friendships risk being hurt when one party is constantly giving, while the other repeatedly pushes against agreed boundaries to seek more. It is undeniable that aid to Israel is coming under greater scrutiny by American taxpayers and their representatives. Those of us who advocate in support of funding for Iron Dome and all the aid pledged in the MOU — including more assistance if Israel truly needs it — are facing increasing skepticism from a growing number of voters and lawmakers who wonder why Israel needs additional U.S. money when it is spending vast sums building illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. The new government in Israel should therefore carefully weigh its asks of the United States with a view to maintaining rather than straining the critical strategic alliance between our two countries.

Image: Yevhenii Strebkov via
Analysis | Middle East
How much did the right really gain in Europe?

Marine Le Pen, President of the French far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National - RN) party parliamentary group, and Jordan Bardella, President of the French far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National - RN) party and head of the RN list for the European elections, attend a political rally during the party's campaign for the EU elections, in Paris, France, June 2, 2024. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann/File Photo

How much did the right really gain in Europe?


The elections for the European Parliament brought gains for parties belonging to both its populist far- right factions — European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the more radical Identity and Democracy (ID) group. Parties of the populist or far right (ECR, ID or unaffiliated) came in first in five countries: France, Italy, Austria, Hungary, and Slovakia.

In Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands, such parties made a strong second place showing. These elections produced highly unsettling developments in France and Germany, the two most influential EU member countries.

keep readingShow less
What the Swiss 'peace summit' can realistically achieve

President of the Swiss Confederation Viola Amherd and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy inspect the guard of honour of the Swiss Army, on Monday, January 15, 2024, in Kehrsatz, near Bern, Switzerland. Keystone/Alessandro Della Valle/Pool via REUTERS

What the Swiss 'peace summit' can realistically achieve


The Ukraine “Peace Summit” in Geneva this weekend is not really a summit and is not really about peace.

The agenda has been scaled back to discussions of limited measures aimed not at ending the war, but at softening some of its aspects. Outside Europe, very few international leaders are attending — including President Biden, who is sending Vice President Kamala Harris and national security adviser Jake Sullivan instead.

keep readingShow less
Diplomacy Watch: A peace summit without Russia
Diplomacy Watch: What’s the point of Swiss peace summit?

Diplomacy Watch: At G7 summit, West works to reassure Ukraine


Switzerland will host a summit this weekend aimed at shoring up global support for Ukraine’s war effort — and Washington and its Western partners are looking to ensure that Kyiv enters the meeting in as strong a position as possible.

Not much of the news coming out of Ukraine in recent months has been particularly positive. Russia has started taking Ukrainian territory for the first time since 2022, there has been increasing political turmoil in Kyiv, and morale among frontline soldiers continues to suffer. Last weekend, right-wing parties that are more skeptical of assisting Ukraine overperformed in European parliamentary elections, particularly in France and Germany.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis