There are Americans who worry about the money their government has given to Israel over the years, and conclude that Israel has responded by making problems for American interests in the Middle East.
The best way to deal with an issue like this is to ask, Compared to what?
The United States, by virtue of being a great power, has put a lot of resources into various places around the world since 1945, with more or less good fortune in what it has gotten.
Lets look at some indications of outlays and results.
The numbers are elusive and complicated, but what follows comes from spending a bit of time with Google.
US financial aid to Israel has been about $3b/year since 1973, or a bit over $100b in total. There have been no American combat deaths for the sake of Israel that I'm aware of. Some might want to put the USS Liberty (1967) and the explosion at the Marine barracks in Beirut (1982) somewhere in the calculation.
Compare that to Vietnam: $111b to $584b are the lower and upper estimates of outlays that I have found, along with 55,000 US military dead.
Iraq and Afghanistan together, perhaps $870b so far and 5,000 US military dead.
Taking account of inflation, and computing the outlays in current terms, would increase greatly the cost of Vietnam, and the aid to Israel in the years closer to 1973.
In aiding Israel, the US has helped a stable democracy defend itself, and contribute to stability in the region.
Some would say that Israel is the cause of instability in the region, but I view that as nonsense. Israel helped protect Jordan from Syria, and has propped up the Fatah government of the West Bank. It ended the nuclear aspirations of Saddam Hussein and so far those of Syria, as well as limiting the influence of Islamic extremists in Lebanon and Gaza.
Comparing the outlays and benefits associated with Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel has been a good deal for the US.
Expenditures on the Marshall Plan were also a good investment that moved Europe toward peace and prosperity. American aid to South Korea helped produce an admirable society, but at the cost of about 34,000 US military dead.
Now the issue of Israeli cooperation with American interests:
Recent reports are that Ehud Olmert offered more to Mahmoud Abbas, with the blessing of George W. Bush, than Ehud Barack offered to Yassir Arafat in 2000 with the blessing of Bill Clinton. (For part of what has been reported, see http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184852687&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
The Olmert offer came in the fading moments of his tenure as prime minister, and did not carry the agreement of the Israeli government. Foreign Minister Livni is said to have opposed part of the offer. Among the details were land swaps for the settlements Israel would keep, international control over the Old City of Jerusalem, and Israel's acceptance of 30,000 refugees under the heading of family unification.
We hear that if the Palestinians agreed, Olmert would have presented the deal at the United Nations. With the cheers of the world behind him, he would then offer it to his government and the Knesset as a "take it or leave it" package, with the expectation that his colleagues would approve.
At the time, Israel's attorney general was preparing multiple indictments against Olmert for various kinds of corruption.
Whatever Olmert's motivation, the Palestinians rejected the offer as insufficient.
So how should the Obama administration get what it wants in the Middle East? More troops in Afghanistan? Attacking Pakistan? Engaging with Iran? Or pressuring Israel to be more forthcoming?
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel: +972-2-532-2725
email: msira@mscc.huji.ac.il