Exclusive: Differences over missile defense, fine print snag U.S.-Israel aid deal
Negotiations meant to enshrine U.S. defense aid for Israel over the next decade have snagged on disputes about the size, scope and fine print of a new multibillion-dollar package, officials say.
Five months into the talks, several U.S. and Israeli officials disclosed details about the disputes to Reuters on condition of anonymity. The U.S. and Israeli governments said negotiations were continuing, declining to elaborate.
Israel is seeking up to $10 billion more than the current 10-year package and billions more than the U.S. administration is offering, partly by asking for guaranteed funding for missile defense projects hitherto funded on an ad hoc basis by the U.S. Congress, the officials said.
U.S. President Barack Obama wants to ensure the funds, thus far spent partly on Israeli arms, are eventually spent entirely on U.S.-made weapons.
The differences partly reflect Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's vocal opposition to the international nuclear deal with Iran championed by Obama. The two sides are also at loggerheads over the Palestinians.
Israel has long been a major recipient of U.S. aid, most in the form of military assistance against a backdrop of an ebbing and flowing conflict with the Palestinians and Israel's neighbors, as well as threats from Iran. Obama has pushed hard for a resolution to the conflict, but has made little headway.
In seeking a sharp increase in military funding, Israel argues it needs to offset military purchases by Iran, Israel’s regional arch-foe, after it secured sanctions relief in the accord limiting its nuclear program.
Israel also wants the U.S. administration to support missile defense projects that have so far relied on ad hoc assistance by the U.S. Congress, citing arms acquisitions by neighboring Arab states as well as Iran as conflicts rage in Syria and Yemen.
Obama's administration, which has fraught relations with Netanyahu, is offering what it says is a record sum to Israel to assuage fears expressed both there and among his Republican rivals at home that the deal with Iran will endanger Israel.
But the officials say it is less money than Israel has sought overall and Obama also wants changes to allow U.S. defense firms to reap greater benefits from a new deal.
If unresolved before Obama leaves office in January, the impasse could deny him a chance to burnish his legacy with the aid package to Washington’s closest Middle East ally. That would also leave Netanyahu to await the next U.S. president in hopes of securing a better deal.
$10 BILLION MORE
The current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed in 2007 and due to expire in 2018, gave Israel a total of about $30 billion, or an average of $3 billion annually, in so-called "Foreign Military Financing."
The Israelis, whose annual defense budget is $15 billion, want at least $3.7 billion annually under the same rubric in the new MOU, officials say.
Israel also wants guaranteed missile defense aid built into the MOU for the first time, which could mean hundreds of millions of dollars more per year, bringing the full package to more than $40 billion over the next decade.
U.S. negotiators have proposed a total of between $3.5 billion and $3.7 billion in annual aid to Israel, but it was not clear if this included any money for missile defense.
The Obama administration has balked at Israel's request to stipulate a separate funding track in the MOU for missile defense projects, one official said. It was not known how much Israel had proposed under the missile defense clause.
Israel wants the missile defense component to be “viewed as the 'floor' amount, as Congress can be asked for more on an ad hoc basis if circumstances require,” said one official.
U.S. lawmakers have in recent years given Israel up to $600 million in annual discretionary funds for missile defense, well beyond the $150 million requested by the Obama administration.
Palestinian rocket salvoes in the Gaza wars of 2008-9, 2012 and 2014 helped Israel drum up American sympathy and support for its anti-missile systems, Iron Dome, Arrow and David's Sling.
More than four-fifths of the U.S. Senate signed a letter last week urging Obama to conclude an increased 10-year aid package.
“These discussions are continuing and we remain hopeful we can reach agreement on a new MOU that will build on the United States' historic and enduring commitment to Israel's security,” a White House official said in response to a Reuters request for confirmation of the latest negotiating terms.
The official declined to comment directly on the terms.
The current MOU allows Israel to spend 26.3 percent of the U.S. funds on its own defense industries. The United States wants to phase this provision out gradually so that all of the money is spent on American military products, the sources said.
Israel wants to keep the provision in place, or only partly reduced, they said. It fears a devastating blow to Israeli arms firms that glean some $800 million a year from the current MOU.
In another move to shore up its own defense industries, the United States wants to end a provision allowing Israel to spend around $400 million in annual MOU funds on military fuels.
One official paraphrased Washington's message to Israel as: "We want (you) to be spending this money on actual security, on weapons systems, ways to make you safer."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-israel-defence-exclusive-idUSKCN0XU1UQ
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
U.S. President Barack Obama wants to ensure the funds, thus far spent partly on Israeli arms, are eventually spent entirely on U.S.-made weapons
US-made weapons? We have no, none nada, zero, security against industrial espionage here. The safest place to make military weapons... the US, and every other country on our "allies" list... would give terrorist activists a guided tour of the facility, the blueprints, and invite them to watch a live test.
"We want (you) to be spending this money on actual security, on weapons systems, ways to make you safer."
The best way to make Israel safer is for the US government, and the EU to shut the hell up when Israel defends itself against Palestinian terrorists, regardless of their age.
Israel is at war. What part of that does the international community, especially the US, not get??
If unresolved before Obama leaves office in January, the impasse could deny him a chance to burnish his legacy with the aid package to Washington’s closest Middle East ally. That would also leave Netanyahu to await the next U.S. president in hopes of securing a better deal.
Indiana was supposed to be one of Cruz's best states-- and Trump just won it (tonight)-- by a YUGE margin (He was even slightly ahead of Cruz with Evangelicals). So it looks like the election will be Trump vs. Hillary. IMO, she would easily beat Trump-- so she's probably going to be our nsxt pres.
She is much more "pro-israel" than Obama-- so after she's elected israel will probably get what they want.
G_d help us if that lying two-faced arrogant cuckold bitch becomes president.
I say the same about Trump... he will cause a world war.
Who do you suggest would make the best POTUS, mimi?
Is Colin Powell too old to run?
He's almost 80.
So am I, but then I'm a Canadian.
Randy,
Yes it's too bad.
At this point I would vote for Ben Affleck. He seems as savvy as anyone else running.. LOL.
At this point I would vote for Ben Affleck.
You know, I would consider that too. However it's too late to mount a serious third party bid, unless someone grabs onto one of the other many Parties in the US and few of them are in every state.
I've said elsewhere that I thought Clint Eastwood would be a great President - he's had governmental experience as a mayor, and a favoured "heroic" movie star has already established that he can garner the vote.
I have always thought so too, Buzz, but his age is against him now.
Once on Anishinaabe, after a discussion about favorite Indian actors where I had said I wanted to say my favorite was Ed Ames who played Mingo on the Daniel Boone TV series (but couldn't do that because he was not an Indian), someone posted a video of an interview a reporter had done with Mr. Ames on the street... he was articulate, very knowledgeable about domestic and world affairs, a complete gentleman with a powerful charismatic presence, and I thought he would have been wonderful in politics.
At the time of the interview, I believe he was in his early 70's.
But I think Clint Eastwood would have been elected....
Buzz,
I wanted to see Powell as president years ago... was bitterly disappointed when his wife begged him not to run and he made the announcement that for the sake of his family and her peace of mind he would not run.
I believe the world would have been a much better place had he been elected POTUS instead of Obama.
I disagree, but I think he would have run as a Democrat anyway. So he might have become the first Black President.
Like Buzz, I wish he had run and been elected.
Sorry, Randy, my friend, I believe he would have made a much better president than Obama.
I think that he would have made a very, very good Democratic President and I think Barack Obama did.
I think that he would have made a very, very good Democratic President
This part of your comment I can agree with, Randy....
Steak or fish? Trump or Clinton? Or a protest vote for a third party that doesn't stand a chance of winning which, IMHO, is just another vote for Trump.
I'm not sure about that, Randy. I think that if the DECENT Republicans run a candidate in a third party to give the Republicans who have no stomach for Trump, it will split the Republican vote and guarantee a Democratic win.
I think it's far too late for that (a third party). Getting on the Ballot in all 50 states, plus the territories would be a monumental task and very expensive. Hey, I'm all for splitting the GOP into two camps though.
Delegates will never allow Trump to run.
This election will show the world... and American citizens... that the people of the United States do not elect the president. The Electoral College elects the president.
And when that happens, it will undermine every attempt the US has ever made to get other countries to become "democratic" nations. The people who vote for Trump will be astounded and furious, because I suspect most Americans don't even realize they have no real vote and no real power to elect the president they want.
This is going to be historical and will be game changer in world politics. We will lose all credibility and the principle of "one person one vote" and the democratic principle on which we claim our country is founded will be a laughing stock.
"I suspect most Americans don't even realize they have no real vote and no real power to elect the president they want."
I thought that was already established when Gore lost notwithstanding the majority popular vote.
There wasn't that big an issue made of it then... but there will be this time.
I don't know. It was a very, very, very big thing at the time because there were a lot of people who honestly didn't know that the President is not elected by the popular vote. Many Gore supporters were angry. I voted for Gore, but I already knew that the popular vote only counts when talking about the popular vote in each individual states to see if the candidate won that state. It turned out to be such a big thing that the SCOTUS had to step in (and I wish they hadn't).
The delegates will have no choice but to vote for the person they are committed to vote for at the convention. I also think a lot more people realize that the President is elected by the electoral college and not by a popular vote then you think, mostly because if it was by popular vote that Al Gore would have become President in 2000.
I think Clinton gets the nomination and the White House. Who else is there? Personally I support Clinton and have all along. If it comes to Clinton v Trump, then I'll happily vote for her. If it becomes Sanders v Trump, then I will be voting against Trump.
I think more of the "common" people are invested in this election because of the social, economic, and international climate. I don't think they cared as much about it during the Gore incident and there was not as great an access to social media as there is now.
Hilly made the comment on The View years ago that the average person was too stupid to understand how government works and the "necessities" that had to be taken, therefore should not be allowed to recall an elected representative.
To make such a statement on a public forum shows extreme arrogance, complete disregard for the idea of people being able to elect and insist that the elected official be responsive to those who elected him/her, and stupidity for saying such a thing on national television.
She panders to whomever she is speaking at the moment... and we've had enough of that with Obama, both at home and on the world.
She was humiliated and cuckold. As ambassador, she was often presented... and wore... the "national costume" of the women in Arab countries; she thought it was flattering for them to give her the clothes to wear, but the fact that she wore them was a mistake. In a country where women are below horses in social standing... where women are abused, even murdered, without impunity as a matter of law... she debased herself by appearing in those clothes. She will not be respected, feared or taken seriously by Arab countries.
She will have to either accept her second-place status on the world stage in negotiations, or she will have to make some decisions that are unwise just to "prove" herself to them.