The book lists many instances of the unique character of Washington’s assistance to Israel, which is hardly a needy country in the usual sense. Two examples show this extra-special status: no other country receives American economic aid without having to account for how it is spent. The sums are enormous; indeed, this comparatively prosperous state is America’s biggest aid recipient, each year receiving sums that dwarf US support for impoverished states such as Bangladesh, Bolivia and Liberia. Only Israel receives ‘a lump-sum cash transfer’. This means Washington has no idea how Israel uses American money. Not only that: Egypt and Jordan, which rank just after Israel as recipients of US foreign aid, get this money, the authors claim, ‘as a reward for good behaviour — specifically their willingness to sign peace treaties with Israel’. But while the reward for Egypt amounts to $20 per person, direct US foreign assistance equals $500 for each Israeli.
As for military assistance, Washington ignores Israel’s possession of WMD programmes, including over 200 nuclear weapons. Washington normally presses other countries to sign the 1968 Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. In the case of Israel, Washington occasionally suggests compliance, but never insists. Nor has Israel been pressed to disclose the extent of its chemical and biological weapons programme, although the US has imposed sanctions on other countries which refused to ratify the Chemical or Biological Weapons Conventions. There was a brief period in 1982 when the US halted supplies of cluster bombs to Israel, but the shipments resumed in 1988; they were used to deadly effect in the most recent war with Lebanon.




Comments
graeme a
March 17th, 2009 12:41amJust a couple of points -
Mr Mirsky - your allegation of Israeli "war crimes" in Israel is based on nothing more empiric than Hizbollah propaganda. The cluster weapons were used against the Hizbollah fighters. Some civilians were hurt by them, but these are a quantity that is insignificant to the conflict. Your conclusion based on "numbers of Lebanese civilians killed" uses casualty figures published by the Hizbollah precisely for the consumption of the likes of you.
Israelis have no problem whatsoever with fair and balanced criticism. Israelis do have a problem with their rebuttal being lumped as "inability to accept criticism" and especially with most of this criticism being the mere deligitimization of the rights of Jews to national self determination (ie - anti-Zionism)
We are extremely tired of Jewish or ex Jewish persons in the diaspora using their Jewishness as a means to endow their statements with added validity and righteousness as they jump on the bandwagon of the hordes of trendy bleeding heart Israel bashers.
I say all this as a member of the IDF (reserve) serving for over 20 years with middle officer rank and intimately acquainted with how the IDF fights, its RoE and the efforts it makes to avoid civilian casualties.
I will add that when I have nothing but immense pride in Israel and the IDF in light of their achievements facing anything ranging from Islamic Jihad to the Western Left.
Report this comment
israeli
September 30th, 2007 4:43pmI would just like to make the point that the reason why Israel (and Israelis) so often seems to reject any criticism is not because we are particularly thin skinned, but because we know that our enemies are looking for any and all ways to weaken us as a means to achieving their final goal of destroying us, and weakening any source of foreign support is one way of doing this. To outsiders it may seem that we are very strong, we feel very vulnerable and know at what price this strength is achieved and the eternal vigilance it demands.
Report this comment
tihson
September 28th, 2007 5:23pmThe trouble with Jonathan Mirsky's thesis is that Ariel Sharon, person with unrivalled experience in the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics cautioned Bush privately prior to 1993 about the dangers of the US invading Iraq, for a number of reasons, including the unlikelihood of democracy taking root there and the danger of strengthening Iran. As to WMD, we shall probably never know the truth. They may have been transported to Syria before the invasion began in as stated in the admittedly hearsay testimony of the former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada.
Report this comment
tihson
September 28th, 2007 5:22pmThe trouble with Jonathan Mirsky's thesis is that Ariel Sharon, person with unrivalled experience in the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics cautioned Bush privately prior to 1993 about the dangers of the US invading Iraq, for a number of reasons, including the unlikelihood of democracy taking root there and the danger of strengthening Iran. As to WMD, we shall probably never know the truth. They may have been transported to Syria before the invasion began in as stated in the admittedly hearsay testimony of the former Iraqi air force general, Georges Sada.
Report this comment