OPINION
LETTERS
An Israel Divided Against Itself
July 25, 2023
Protests in Jerusalem went late on Monday night.Credit...Ilan Rosenberg/Reuters
To the Editor:
Re “As Israel Churns, Lawmakers Pass Court Overhaul” (front page, July 25):
While the hard-liners in Israel may have won their battle to neuter the Supreme Court, one can ask whether or not the victory was really worth the loss of comity among the Israeli people, as the legitimacy of the government is now in question.
Whatever happens next, it is a sad day for Israel and the American people who support the country, because as Abraham Lincoln once warned, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
One can only hope that Israelis can find a way to step back and regain the sense of common purpose that has been the north star of the country’s existence.
Michael Scott
San Francisco
To the Editor:
I am a Los Angeles native and a Jew. Given the history of Jewish persecution, I have always taken comfort in knowing that Israel is there for me just in case something terrible were ever to happen to jeopardize a safe Jewish existence in the U.S.
Now that safe haven is undermined by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s revision of what Israel stands for. I no longer trust that Israel represents a safe haven.
It no longer enshrines a respect for the checks and balances that preserve democratic norms. Curtailing the powers of the Supreme Court is the first step to control opposition. Israel is becoming a state that serves Mr. Netanyahu and an ultra-Orthodox, ultraright agenda.
Jews around the world have lost the one place they assumed would never forsake them, thanks to a corrupt power grab by a corrupt power-hungry leader.
William Goldman
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
Re “Netanyahu Ushers In a Precarious New Era” (news analysis, front page, July 25):
The program of gutting the judiciary by the Netanyahu government is the natural outcome of the occupation of the West Bank. By continuing to sanction the building and expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Israel has emboldened the nationalist fundamentalist forces that are now threatening the democratic values of the state.
They will not stop until they have achieved their objective of degrading democracy because their vision of Israel is fundamentally at odds with a pluralistic democratic state and a two-state solution, which is now an impossibility because of their insistence that the West Bank is a biblical part of the Land of Israel that cannot be given up.
Israel therefore is headed for dark days, as a compromise is impossible between the forces of a secular democratic state and those who believe that religious and nationalistic values should dominate, even if that means destroying the rule of law and abolishing checks on government power.
Steven E. Cerier
Queens
To the Editor:
Re “Does Israel Need So Much Aid?,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, July 23):
This article making the case for reducing American aid to Israel continues the overwhelmingly negative reporting on Israel by The New York Times.
The United States benefits more from the aid it gives to Israel than it benefits from aid given to any other country. Israel shares its highly respected military intelligence and technological innovations (military and civilian) with the United States. Both save lives and money.
Israel combats the military influence of Iran in the Middle East, reducing the need for American military intervention in the region. Aid to Israel is not charity. It is a clearheaded strategy to protect American and Western interests.
Jerry Freedman
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
As a dual citizen who has served in the Israeli military, I am mortified by the Netanyahu right wing’s proposed takeover of the judicial branch. There is no more opportune time to curtail our military aid to Israel.
American Jews should use their voices to protest against an authoritarian Israel. Considering that Israel doesn’t need our arms and Ukraine does, this kind of “tough love” would be the least the U.S. can do.
Benjamin Metrick
New York
To the Editor:
Re “As Israel Churns, Lawmakers Pass Court Overhaul” (front page, July 25):
While the hard-liners in Israel may have won their battle to neuter the Supreme Court, one can ask whether or not the victory was really worth the loss of comity among the Israeli people, as the legitimacy of the government is now in question.
Whatever happens next, it is a sad day for Israel and the American people who support the country, because as Abraham Lincoln once warned, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
One can only hope that Israelis can find a way to step back and regain the sense of common purpose that has been the north star of the country’s existence.
Michael Scott
San Francisco
To the Editor:
I am a Los Angeles native and a Jew. Given the history of Jewish persecution, I have always taken comfort in knowing that Israel is there for me just in case something terrible were ever to happen to jeopardize a safe Jewish existence in the U.S.
Now that safe haven is undermined by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s revision of what Israel stands for. I no longer trust that Israel represents a safe haven.
It no longer enshrines a respect for the checks and balances that preserve democratic norms. Curtailing the powers of the Supreme Court is the first step to control opposition. Israel is becoming a state that serves Mr. Netanyahu and an ultra-Orthodox, ultraright agenda.
Jews around the world have lost the one place they assumed would never forsake them, thanks to a corrupt power grab by a corrupt power-hungry leader.
William Goldman
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
Re “Netanyahu Ushers In a Precarious New Era” (news analysis, front page, July 25):
The program of gutting the judiciary by the Netanyahu government is the natural outcome of the occupation of the West Bank. By continuing to sanction the building and expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Israel has emboldened the nationalist fundamentalist forces that are now threatening the democratic values of the state.
They will not stop until they have achieved their objective of degrading democracy because their vision of Israel is fundamentally at odds with a pluralistic democratic state and a two-state solution, which is now an impossibility because of their insistence that the West Bank is a biblical part of the Land of Israel that cannot be given up.
Israel therefore is headed for dark days, as a compromise is impossible between the forces of a secular democratic state and those who believe that religious and nationalistic values should dominate, even if that means destroying the rule of law and abolishing checks on government power.
Steven E. Cerier
Queens
To the Editor:
Re “Does Israel Need So Much Aid?,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, July 23):
This article making the case for reducing American aid to Israel continues the overwhelmingly negative reporting on Israel by The New York Times.
The United States benefits more from the aid it gives to Israel than it benefits from aid given to any other country. Israel shares its highly respected military intelligence and technological innovations (military and civilian) with the United States. Both save lives and money.
Israel combats the military influence of Iran in the Middle East, reducing the need for American military intervention in the region. Aid to Israel is not charity. It is a clearheaded strategy to protect American and Western interests.
Jerry Freedman
Los Angeles
To the Editor:
As a dual citizen who has served in the Israeli military, I am mortified by the Netanyahu right wing’s proposed takeover of the judicial branch. There is no more opportune time to curtail our military aid to Israel.
American Jews should use their voices to protest against an authoritarian Israel. Considering that Israel doesn’t need our arms and Ukraine does, this kind of “tough love” would be the least the U.S. can do.
Benjamin Metrick
New York
===
OPINION
NICHOLAS KRISTOF
With Israel, It’s Time to Start Discussing the Unmentionable
July 22, 2023
Demonstrators in Tel Aviv protesting plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to overhaul Israel’s judicial system.Credit...Oded Balilty/Associated Press
1.3K
By Nicholas Kristof
Opinion Columnist
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Israel is in the headlines, evoking tumultuous debate. Yet one topic remains largely unmentionable, so let me gingerly raise it: Is it time to think about phasing out American aid for Israel down the road?
This is not about whacking Israel. But does it really make sense for the United States to provide the enormous sum of $3.8 billion annually to another wealthy country?
I don’t think any change should happen abruptly or in a way that jeopardizes Israeli security. The reason to rethink American aid is not to seek leverage over Israel — although I do think we should be tougher on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is extinguishing any hope of a two-state solution and is, in the words of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, “determined to degrade Israel into a corrupt and racist dictatorship that will crumble society.”
Rather, the reason to have this conversation is that American aid to another rich country squanders scarce resources and creates an unhealthy relationship damaging to both sides.
Today, Israel has legitimate security concerns but is not in peril of being invaded by the armies of its neighbors, and it is richer per capita than Japan and some European countries. One sign of changed times: Almost a quarter of Israel’s arms exports last year went to Arab states.
The $3.8 billion in annual assistance to Israel is more than 10 times as much as the U.S. sends to the far more populous nation of Niger, one of the poorest countries in the world and one under attack by jihadis. In countries like Niger, that sum could save hundreds of thousands of lives a year, or here in the United States, it could help pay for desperately needed early childhood programs.
Aid to Israel is now almost exclusively military assistance that can be used only to buy American weaponry. In reality, it’s not so much aid to Israel as it is a backdoor subsidy to American military contractors, which is one reason some Israelis are cool to it.
“Israel should give up on the American aid,” Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli minister of justice, told me. He has argued that the money can be used more effectively elsewhere.
Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, agreed.
“Israel’s economy is strong enough that it does not need aid; security assistance distorts Israel’s economy and creates a false sense of dependency,” Kurtzer said in an email. “Aid provides the U.S. with no leverage or influence over Israeli decisions to use force; because we sit by quietly while Israel pursues policies we oppose, we are seen as ‘enablers’ of Israel’s occupation.”
“And U.S. aid provides a multibillion-dollar cushion that allows Israel to avoid hard choices of where to spend its own money and thus allows Israel to spend more money on policies we oppose, such as settlements.”
At some point when running for president in the last election, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren all suggested conditioning aid to Israel. A poll of American Jews found a majority supported assistance but also favored some restrictions on aid so it could not be used to expand settlements.
It’s not just liberals. “Cut the stranglehold of aid,” Jacob Siegel and Liel Leibovitz argued recently in Tablet magazine, saying that the aid benefited America and its arms manufacturers while undercutting Israeli companies.
Image
U.S. Air Force and Israeli Air Force personnel next to a Patriot missile defense system at the Israeli Air Force Hatzor air base.Credit...Atef Safadi/European Pressphoto Agency
There’s a legitimate counterargument that any reduction in aid could be perceived as a pullback of support for Israel in ways that might invite aggression by, say, Iran. That risk can be mitigated by approaching the issue as a long-term discussion for the next bilateral memorandum of understanding about aid, due by 2028 and likely to stand for 10 years, and by reaching other security agreements with Israel (as Beilin and Kurtzer recommend).
Martin Indyk, who twice served as America’s ambassador to Israel, also favored new security agreements and said that it’s time to have this discussion about ending aid.
“Israel can afford it, and it would be healthier for the relationship if Israel stood on its own two feet,” he told me.
The issue is politically sensitive, of course. Just a couple of years ago, more than 325 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter opposing any drop in aid to Israel.
“There’s a serious conversation that should be had ahead of this next memorandum of understanding about how best to use $40 billion in U.S. tax dollars,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, an advocacy group. “Yet instead of a serious national security discussion, you’re likely to get a toxic mix of partisan brawling and political pandering.”
I think we can do better, if we all approach this in a nonideological, patient way exploring what is best for both countries.
Aaron David Miller, who was for many years a State Department Middle East analyst and negotiator, argued for barring aid to any military units that commit gross violations of human rights. He also told me, “Under the right conditions and in a galaxy far, far away, with U.S.-Israeli relations on even if not better keel, there would be advantages to both to see military aid phased out over time.”
That’s the way we should think about this, as a conversation we need to move toward. We’d all benefit by finding the maturity to discuss the unmentionable.
OPINION
NICHOLAS KRISTOF
With Israel, It’s Time to Start Discussing the Unmentionable
July 22, 2023
Demonstrators in Tel Aviv protesting plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to overhaul Israel’s judicial system.Credit...Oded Balilty/Associated Press1.3K
By Nicholas Kristof
Opinion Columnist
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Israel is in the headlines, evoking tumultuous debate. Yet one topic remains largely unmentionable, so let me gingerly raise it: Is it time to think about phasing out American aid for Israel down the road?
This is not about whacking Israel. But does it really make sense for the United States to provide the enormous sum of $3.8 billion annually to another wealthy country?
I don’t think any change should happen abruptly or in a way that jeopardizes Israeli security. The reason to rethink American aid is not to seek leverage over Israel — although I do think we should be tougher on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is extinguishing any hope of a two-state solution and is, in the words of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, “determined to degrade Israel into a corrupt and racist dictatorship that will crumble society.”
Rather, the reason to have this conversation is that American aid to another rich country squanders scarce resources and creates an unhealthy relationship damaging to both sides.
Today, Israel has legitimate security concerns but is not in peril of being invaded by the armies of its neighbors, and it is richer per capita than Japan and some European countries. One sign of changed times: Almost a quarter of Israel’s arms exports last year went to Arab states.
The $3.8 billion in annual assistance to Israel is more than 10 times as much as the U.S. sends to the far more populous nation of Niger, one of the poorest countries in the world and one under attack by jihadis. In countries like Niger, that sum could save hundreds of thousands of lives a year, or here in the United States, it could help pay for desperately needed early childhood programs.
Aid to Israel is now almost exclusively military assistance that can be used only to buy American weaponry. In reality, it’s not so much aid to Israel as it is a backdoor subsidy to American military contractors, which is one reason some Israelis are cool to it.
“Israel should give up on the American aid,” Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli minister of justice, told me. He has argued that the money can be used more effectively elsewhere.
Daniel Kurtzer, a former American ambassador to Israel, agreed.
“Israel’s economy is strong enough that it does not need aid; security assistance distorts Israel’s economy and creates a false sense of dependency,” Kurtzer said in an email. “Aid provides the U.S. with no leverage or influence over Israeli decisions to use force; because we sit by quietly while Israel pursues policies we oppose, we are seen as ‘enablers’ of Israel’s occupation.”
“And U.S. aid provides a multibillion-dollar cushion that allows Israel to avoid hard choices of where to spend its own money and thus allows Israel to spend more money on policies we oppose, such as settlements.”
At some point when running for president in the last election, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren all suggested conditioning aid to Israel. A poll of American Jews found a majority supported assistance but also favored some restrictions on aid so it could not be used to expand settlements.
It’s not just liberals. “Cut the stranglehold of aid,” Jacob Siegel and Liel Leibovitz argued recently in Tablet magazine, saying that the aid benefited America and its arms manufacturers while undercutting Israeli companies.
Image
U.S. Air Force and Israeli Air Force personnel next to a Patriot missile defense system at the Israeli Air Force Hatzor air base.Credit...Atef Safadi/European Pressphoto AgencyThere’s a legitimate counterargument that any reduction in aid could be perceived as a pullback of support for Israel in ways that might invite aggression by, say, Iran. That risk can be mitigated by approaching the issue as a long-term discussion for the next bilateral memorandum of understanding about aid, due by 2028 and likely to stand for 10 years, and by reaching other security agreements with Israel (as Beilin and Kurtzer recommend).
Martin Indyk, who twice served as America’s ambassador to Israel, also favored new security agreements and said that it’s time to have this discussion about ending aid.
“Israel can afford it, and it would be healthier for the relationship if Israel stood on its own two feet,” he told me.
The issue is politically sensitive, of course. Just a couple of years ago, more than 325 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter opposing any drop in aid to Israel.
“There’s a serious conversation that should be had ahead of this next memorandum of understanding about how best to use $40 billion in U.S. tax dollars,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, an advocacy group. “Yet instead of a serious national security discussion, you’re likely to get a toxic mix of partisan brawling and political pandering.”
I think we can do better, if we all approach this in a nonideological, patient way exploring what is best for both countries.
Aaron David Miller, who was for many years a State Department Middle East analyst and negotiator, argued for barring aid to any military units that commit gross violations of human rights. He also told me, “Under the right conditions and in a galaxy far, far away, with U.S.-Israeli relations on even if not better keel, there would be advantages to both to see military aid phased out over time.”
That’s the way we should think about this, as a conversation we need to move toward. We’d all benefit by finding the maturity to discuss the unmentionable.
More on Israel
Opinion | Thomas L. Friedman
Biden to Netanyahu: Please Stop Trying to Rush Through Your Judicial Overhaul. Build a Consensus First.
July 18, 2023
Opinion | Bret Stephens
At 75, Israel Has Plenty to Celebrate
May 16, 2023
Opinion | Nicholas Kristof
The ‘Unshakable’ Bonds of Friendship With Israel Are Shaking
May 19, 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment