5 Pros and Cons of the MOU
| September 21, 2016W
hen Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama met this week on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly it was the 17th and perhaps final time they sat down together as heads of their respective countries.
Though they are polar opposites in terms of worldview and Obama turned a cold shoulder to Bibi on more than one occasion the president never questioned the importance of American military aid toIsrael or its strategic value to both countries.
The US and Israel signed a new ten-year memorandum of understanding (MOU) last week in Washington tying down the terms of US military aid to Israel from October 2018 until October 2028.
Professor Shmuel Sandler a senior research associate at theBegin-SadatCenterfor Strategic Studies says the new deal contains both pluses and minuses forIsrael its defense industries andIsrael’s loyal supporters in theUS. We crunched some of numbers and parsed the issues to understand what’s at stake.
The MOU Is Binding
Many pundits have suggested that a memorandum of understanding is not a treaty and therefore is nonbinding and open to renegotiation. While this is technically true it’s also technically true that chicken is not beef but you still wait six hours after eating either schnitzel or a hamburger before consuming ice cream. The MOU is a signed document between two countries so it is the wording that counts not the designation. The MOU is worded to last for ten years and to take the guesswork out of the budgeting process for both the US and Israeli governments.
“The IDF can now budget knowing how much money will come in every year which is good news for military and economic planners” Professor Sandler says. By the same token theUSalso has set a limit as to how much it is committed to making aid toIsraelless of a target for potential future budget cuts compared to other aid and social welfare programs that turn into bottomless pits.
Israel Gets a 25% Raise
The new MOU grantsIsrael$38 billion inUSmilitary aid — an increase of $7 billion or about 25% over the current $31 billion package that expires in two years.Israelwill receive the funding in equal annual installments of $3.8 billion a sum that includes $3.3 billion for conventional military aid and $500 million for missile defense.Israelcurrently spends the equivalent of $15 billion a year from its own budget on national defense (excluding internal security costs). So the extra $3.8 billion gives the IDF 25% more purchasing power for advanced equipment such as the new F-35 fighter aircraft and allows it to continue development of its state-of-the-art missile defense systems like Iron Dome David’s Sling and the Arrow. ForAmerica the aid toIsraelcomes right back home asIsraelspends the bulk of it — and soon all of it — withUSdefense manufacturers.
Israeli Defense Contractors Lose Out
Under the present MOUIsraelmay use 26% of theUSaid on Israeli military equipment and systems. The new MOU phases that out and by 2025Israelwill have to spend 100% of the aid on “Made inAmerica.” Critics of the MOU say Netanyahu caved to Obama on this clause. Professor Sandler contends theUSdemand was not unreasonable andIsraelcan adjust. He says that Israeli andUSdefense contractors compete for business in global markets and sometimes the Israeli companies win. This upsets many members of Congress who represent districts that are home toUSdefense companies and thousands of US workers.
“IfIsraelspends moreUSaid within theUS these congressmen benefit politically and we need their support” Professor Sandler says. “The Israeli defense industry will have to find new export markets and our economy is large enough that the $700 million a year we will lose will not cause its collapse.”
Obama Ties AIPAC’s Hands
You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to speculate that President Obama had an ulterior motive in his demand thatIsraelnot lobby Congress for additional military aid above and beyond the sum in the MOU for the duration of the agreement. This clause stops the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC — a major thorn in Obama’s side — from going over the head of the commander in chief and appealing to Congress’s power of the purse.
Professor Sandler says he is unconcerned. “There is enough to lobby for inWashington. Foreign relations are very complex. There will be other crises whereIsraelwill need AIPAC to help us out so instead of pressuring theUSfor money they will pressure them for other things.”
Israel Took a Calculated Risk
Did Netanyahu agree to the MOU to grant Obama a victory in the hopes of dissuading him from supporting a Palestinian state at the UN? With two years left on the current MOU could Bibi have held out for a better deal from Trump orClinton?
“This [worry about the UN] may have been one consideration” Professor Sandler says. “But we don’t really know how the next president will behave. Let’s say Trump is elected and he starts cutting down on foreign aid or Hillary uses the agreement as pressure against us to compromise on the Palestinian issue. It also takes at least a half a year for a new administration to get its foreign policy in place and that’s a long time to wait. So Netanyahu took the best deal he could now.”
Oops! We could not locate your form.