Ex-defense official: US military aid is actually $100m less than past deal
Amos Yadlin says new package sees Israel ‘paying for’ Netanyahu’s 2015 speech to Congress; claims Washington ‘stung’ PM, Congress and AIPAC
The former head of Israel’s Military Intelligence on Friday joined the chorus of ex-security officials criticizing the $38 billion, 10-year US defense aid package signed Wednesday, arguing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have pressed for additional funding had he not angered the White House with his March 2015 address to Congress against the Iran nuclear deal.
Maj. Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin, who also served as IDF attaché to Washington and who is currently the director of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), told Army Radio that the breakdown of the aid package — touted by Washington as its largest-ever to any country in history — suggests it is actually $100 million lower than previous arrangements.
“Barak is right that the aid package we received is slightly less than what we received in the previous agreement; it’s a decrease of $100 million,” Yadlin said, referring to a critique of the deal by former prime minister Ehud Barak.
In an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Thursday, Barak said that with a 20 percent cumulative rise in the cost of arms since the last 10-year agreement came into effect and a clause barring Israel from seeking further funds from the US Congress, the deal gives Israel “no greater purchasing power” than it had under the last accord.
Like Barak, Yadlin linked what he said was the reduced funding to Netanyahu’s lobbying against the Iran deal.
“We could have received a better aid deal, [but] the prime minister gave an unnecessary speech to Congress, and we’re paying for it,” Yadlin said.
Yadlin, who was the Zionist Union’s candidate for defense minister had the center-left won last year’s elections, also maintained the Obama administration “stung” Netanyahu, as well as Congress and the pro-Israel US lobby, with its requirement that Jerusalem not seek additional funding from the US Congress.
“The prime minister was forbidden from asking for a budget increase from Congress. In the agreement, the Obama administration stung the prime minister, Congress, and AIPAC — three birds with one stone,” Yadlin said.
Barak on Thursday night doubled down on claims that Netanyahu and his current government have caused strategic damage to Israel and that the military deal was a bad one as a result, giving a series of interviews to Israeli outlets .
In a Channel 10 interview from Boston, following the cutting op-ed in The Washington Post in which he accused the prime minster of “reckless conduct” that threatens Israel’s very existence, Barak said that although he would not run in the next elections, he “will operate in many ways to ensure a change in leadership.”
In his op-ed, Barak, who also served as Netanyahu’s defense minister from 2009 to 2013, accused the premier of bungling the negotiations and reaching a package significantly smaller than was originally expected.
“The damage produced by Netanyahu’s irresponsible management of the relations with the White House is now fully manifest,” Barak wrote. “Israel will receive $3.8 billion a year — an important contribution to our security but far less than what could have been obtained before the prime minister chose to blatantly interfere with US politics.”
On Thursday, Barak said Netanyahu’s political meddling in US affairs “cost Israel [an additional] $7 billion.”
The op-ed drew a furious response from Netanyahu’s Likud party, which accused the former prime minister of not having Israel’s interests at heart and attempting a “pathetic [political] comeback.”
“The publication of an article that bashes Israel in the US media on the day the largest aid deal in the history of the US was signed is just further proof that Ehud Barak does not have Israel’s best interests at heart,” the party said. The op-ed came amid swirling rumors that the former prime minister is mulling a return to politics.
Barak dismissed the response, calling it “childish.”
Barak told Israel’s Channel 2 on Thursday night that Israel also lost out on more than just money.
“I know well what’s important to Israel and Washington and I know that we could have gotten $4.5 billion, and much deeper ties with American intelligence to deal with Iran, a serious dialogue with the president on possible sanctions and even military [options]. All that was on the table,” he said.
Former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon joined Barak Thursday in slamming Netanyahu, saying Israel should have gotten a bigger payday.
The former defense minister, who was effectively ousted from his position earlier this year amid a political crisis that saw Avigdor Liberman take his place, suggested that in October 2015, when he was still in the post, he negotiated a better deal with his then-counterpart Ashton Carter that included a list of capabilities that would have been available to Israel.
“Put in another way, I don’t think $38 billion will provide all the [required] capabilities or meet all our [defense] needs,” Ya’alon said in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which he joined in July as a visiting fellow.
Israel “will now have to go through a prioritization process in Israel to see what we can get and what we prefer to leave [aside],” he added.
The new military package will grant Israel $3.8 billion annually — up from the $3 billion pledged under the previous agreed -upon Memorandum of Understanding — starting in 2018 and through 2028. But under the terms of the deal, Israel pledged not to seek additional funding from Congress for the next decade. The agreement also includes a provision curtailing Israel’s ability to spend the funds on its own arms industry over the next six years — a key area of dispute during talks.
According to earlier reports, Israel had asked for a separate $400 million deal for missile defense spending — which could have raised the total amount to more than $4 billion annually. The final figure, however, was set without that provision.
