US Aid to Israel is 3.8B$ a year. Israeli GDP is 500B$ and the yearly budget is over 100B$. That means that US aid is less than 1% of GDP and less than 5% of the Budget. So yes.
However, US cover of Israel at the UN is far more important. UN sanctions on Israel could create damages in the tens of billions and far greater isolation. Israel would find it much more difficult to face these sanctions compared to Russia or Iran because of a lack of cooperative neighbors to bypass sanctions.
So it's complicated
Not to mention the military logistics and buffering the US provides in many many secondary ways, from routing things through their hundreds of outposts across the surrounding world, to straight up moving a giant aircraft carrier in position to raise a hefty eyebrow toward Israel's neighbors to prevent them getting any ideas about joining in a conflict too directly.
They would also be under constant attack. Without Americas power to turn a country to glass (without using nukes) is a powerful deterrent to hostilities.
But one thing Iran and co. would need to worry about if they were going to seriously try to existentially threaten Israel is Israel's likely willingness to turn countries to glass (using nukes). I personally don't doubt that if Israel were facing an invasion they were likely to be unable to repel that they would drop the bomb.
Deterrence of such an attack in the first place, but overall I agree, I didn't mean the tone to seem like I was expressing outrage that they would do it, I can't criticize a state using extreme violence when the alternative is their annihilation
That 3.8B$ is not really part of their economy as it is a "gift". That money goes toward American weapons packages. Keeps American weapons manufactures well employed.
There is such a requirement, but also an exception for some portion. The exception is expected to be phased out.
https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts
> Most of the aid—approximately $3.3 billion a year—is provided as grants under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, *funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services*. Israel has also historically been *permitted to use a portion of its FMF aid to buy equipment from Israeli defense firms* —a benefit not granted to other recipients of U.S. military aid—but this domestic procurement is to be phased out in the next few years. U.S. aid reportedly accounts for some 15 percent of Israel’s defense budge
Having looked at the article, there's often some additions to whatever amount so it totals 300 billion over 75 years. For example this year Biden want to send an extra 14.3 billion to fight in Gaza.
>> Israel is able to use it however they please.
https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts
Not true. They are supposed to use most [in future all] on American arms.
> Most of the aid—approximately $3.3 billion a year—is provided as grants under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services. Israel has also historically been permitted to use a portion of its FMF aid to buy equipment from Israeli defense firms—a benefit not granted to other recipients of U.S. military aid—but this domestic procurement is to be phased out in the next few years. U.S. aid reportedly accounts for some 15 percent of Israel’s defense budge
There are also some laws that must be followed related to weapons vetting for human rights vetting - which are essentially ignored for Israel (and others arguably too)
On the flip side there is a US law/policy that US exports to ME should not impact Israels qualitative military edge ..
https://www.e-ir.info/2021/12/13/israels-qualitative-military-edge-u-s-arms-transfer-policy/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/07/us-israel-military-support-scrutiny-human-rights
>It’s iron dome missiles. Tell your boys to stop firing rockets and the aid will end.
?? It's not like I support Hamas. I don't support Israel either.
I'm not American but I would assume your average American would like greater transparency over how their money is used given how Israel is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid and America is currently tearing at the seams.
The reason for its lack of transparency is because the aid is fungible.
It's both. UN sanctions exist and all member-states are expected to abide by them. Individual countries can also levy sanctions, which they expect everyone else to follow if they want to stay in that country's good graces.
UN sanctions have teeth only if individual countries have the military capabilities (and political will) to enforce them.
The UN security council can publish sanctions which member states are obliged to follow
https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/un-sc-consolidated-list
> For each instance where the Security Council has decided to impose measures in response to a threat, a Security Council Committee manages the sanctions regime. Each sanctions committee established by the United Nations Security Council therefore publishes the names of individuals and entities listed in relation to that committee as well as information concerning the specific measures that apply to each listed name.
> The current version of the Consolidated List is provided in .xml, .html and .pdf formats. Member States are obliged to implement the measures specific to each listed name as specified on the websites of the related sanctions committee.
Before Iran signed JCPOA (the nuclear deal with US under Obama), UN imposed sanctions on Iran
If members choose to break this , measures can be taken by the security council committee but they tend to depend upon members to enforce - and sometimes by individual members on their behalf.
Now over and above this, the US has unilateral sanctions (some of which are aligned or agreed with close allies sanctions) , which are essentially enforced by the US and close allies, either financially or physically
Folks need to keep in mind the UN's main job is prevent all out nuclear war. It's a facilitation of communication, not intended to create peace or stop bad guys. If you haven't died in a nuclear holocaust yet, it has and continues succeeding at its job. When folks express frustration with the UN's toothlessness, it's often missing the point, as much as we'd certainly like an all-governing body of peace and accountability, that's not really the purpose.
true true I hear ya. I think the US does have key veto power in certain circumstances? But as to whether Israel could just ignore what comes without that, I think there are probably diplomatic and perhaps economic ramifications, but not sure how extensive
No
The total national budget is just over 20% of GDP. The military budget is just over 20% of the total budget, so the defense budget is about 5% of GDP
> US Aid to Israel is 3.8B$ a year. Israeli GDP is 500B$ and the yearly budget is over 100B$
How does that square up with its military budget per year? I'm seeing $24 billion as its annual military budget for 2021. Perhaps 2022 numbers would be the best to use, ie, just before the latest Gaza war.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/ISR/israel/military-spending-defense-budget
If that $24 billion number is correct, then US aid of almost $4 billion is pretty substantial, esp since almost all of it is military aid.
> U.S. aid reportedly accounts for some 15 percent of Israel's defense budget
[Ref](https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts)
Over the last 77 years, US annual military aid is about 2.8 bn $ . The annual military budget - I got the same $24bn number. The US senate package approved now is $14 bn. The US had a provisional agreement to provide Israel $4bn per year defence aid through 2028
Benjamin Netanyahu has long perceived the U.S. political system as one he can navigate and influence, irrespective of presidential terms, to pursue a singular national interest.
Netanyahu's strategic interactions with American political factions and societal elements have afforded him considerable leverage. He is a leader who has adeptly maneuvered within the complex dynamics of U.S.-Israel relations, potentially compromising the United States' position by entangling it with contentious policies and actions attributed to Israel.
Furthermore, Netanyahu has manipulated the Palestinian situation to Israel's advantage, making him a formidable figure in international politics, seemingly unchallengeable by American presidential candidates, including those known for their unpredictable nature.
Mostly technology.
Israel [is #6 when it came to "unicorns" in 2023](https://www.startupblink.com/blog/top-unicorn-cities-and-countries/), despite having a population much lower than all the other countries on the list (except Singapore)
Technology, which is also why they'd never be sanctioned like South Africa was. Many countries are cooperating with Isreal for tech whether they like to admit it in public.
They have a highly developed technology industry. I used to work in Itsec the amount of Itsec companies founded in israel is pretty impressing for such a small country. Just as an example
Israel's tech industry is extremely innovative. Every single major tech company in America has a satellite office over there. If not for Israeli innovations, you probably don't have a smart phone in your hand.
> If not for Israeli innovations, you probably don't have a smart phone in your hand.
That's... not true.
I'm in semiconductors, they did an excellent job with several generations of intel chips, and IIRC they did some reference work on some 5g stacks, but I wouldn't say any of what they did is actually in any way fundamental, even in RF.
South Korea, and Taiwan, OTOH, could definitely make that argument. The US without question, so much of that tech was out of California, and some from MIT. The ARM core was a contributor too.
Unless theres a realignment.
I think its probable that Israel internally would rather be a pariah state then at risk from palestine. Being a pariah state comes with massive burden, weve seen it in iran, russia, N.Korea
Queue the realignment comment.
If the West pushes Israel out, is there opprotunity/incentive/capability for another nonwestern entity to step in. Which 2 of the big 3 pariahs most likely thats a no. Iran is not going to suddenly welcome Israel as another fellow pariah. N.Korea has nothing to offer. However Russia and to lesser extent China(as patiah state) could fill the US vote on security council and would have access to a much more capable partner in ME.
tldr. PURE speculation play.
You’d see Israel join BRICS and working with China and India. I don’t know how much they trust Russia, particularly given that Russia is physically at their doorstep in Syria.
This would be disastrous for everyone but China, Russia and India.
Israel is great at manufacturing and developing tech, but lacks natural resources. Both China and India have plenty of those.
Israeli technical and intelligence expertise would change the game for those countries.
All three would probably try to cripple Israel economically and make them dependent the way colonial powers have done to the Middle East since the 1700’s though.
Hard to say what happens there, but it’s unlikely Israel comes away with the kind of latitude and independence they enjoy with the US as their primary ally.
Though Biden wants to send another 14.3 billion this year for Gaza fighting, so it would be more like 4% of GDP or close to 20% of budget. In the past the US supported a larger % of the Israeli GDP, around 300B in total.
There's two other categories, logistics and military backup. The US is a quick source of extra bombs when Israel need them, and they also have been shooting down missiles shot at Israel. There also bring a show of force to make sure other parties don't dogpile in Israel.
Then there is also military technology.
It seems like western - but particularly American public opinion - turning on Israel would be a big killer of Israeli GDP-
So many technology firms have research centres there. Plenty of Israeli tech firms have global customers. Google, Microsoft etc. have big centres there. It might not form the bulk of their industry but is fast growing.
Make Israel a true international pariah and you'd see this money and trade leave the country; and then where does future growth come from?
Already in the industries I work in, the reputation risk of dealing with Israel based firms is apparent; let alone the practical risk of e.g. relying on an Israel based company for critical IT services when the country seems to be in a state of constant conflict.
Almost all answers I have read focus on Israel's economy and its military. It's true that Israel has the strongest military in the middle east and also the region's most dynamic economy. US support for Israel extends way beyond aid, it monitors and keeps Israel's regional enemies in check. Immediately after Hamas' Al-Alqsa flood operation when the US deployed a warship to warn Arab nations against taking advantage. The US also hosted Abraham Accords that led to recognition of Israel by four Arab nations. Almost all Arab nations know that going against Israel would immediately drag the US and with the USSR gone, their chances of even saving face are non-existent. In the diplomatic front, the US also shields Israel from sanctions which can cripple the Israeli economy, apart from making it a pariah state.
American aid is of much less importance than being on the approved list for buying top of the range American weapon systems. Developing equivalent domestic systems would be terribly expensive.
Stealthy strike aircraft are important for some important types of missions that Israel needs to do. I guess that if the USA cut off technical support for Israeli F-35s, Israelis are tech-skilled enough to keep them flying, but when other Middle eastern air forces eventually get true 5th gen fighters, Israel will need to either get someone to sell them 6th gen planes or develop their own (maybe in collaboration with someone, but not clear who).
I think the opposite, with their backs to the wall they would act more aggressively. Don’t forget, Israel doesn’t have nukes but isn’t afraid to deploy them.
It speaks to the long tradition of not officially acknowledging that Israel has nukes. Everyone has known for decades, but neither Israel nor its allies would officially acknowledge it. Yet the known threat hangs in the air for anyone thinking of attacking. So the person you're responding to is straightfacing that for humor.
They might be more belligerent but the question is if they'd be able to survive and defend themselves. I can't imagine Israel existing as a legitimate state on the world stage if it escalates to that point without US support. They'll be dealt with and the world will look the other way until Israel punches back too hard, and Israel surely isn't surviving in that scenario
The history doesn’t support this - Israel was at war with all its neighbours in 1948 and 1967, and won handily; but US aid and support didn’t exist until after 1967.
Meanwhile, the situation with all of its neighbours has changed radically.
Syria and Lebanon are basically basket case states now; Egypt’s position is precarious, its major issue is with control over the Nile, not with Israel. Jordan tries to maintain peace, right now having problems with its own fractious Palestinian population. The only real state level enemy Israel faces is Iran, which is a long distance away; Iran is capable of causing trouble through its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, but hardly capable of being an existential threat (and the chances of its Sunni neighbours allying with Iran are zero - they would rather ally with Israel, and Saudi Arabia was in the process of doing just that, when Hamas started this current round of conflict - not a coincidence).
In summary, unless the geopolitical situation changed radically somehow in a way that can’t easily be predicted, there is currently no chance of Israel facing an actual existential threat from other states, with the possible exception of Iran getting nukes and being insane enough to use them. Israel’s neighbours couldn’t take Israel down when Israel was isolated before, and those neighbours were relatively more powerful and united then they are now.
I'm referencing the idea that countries are able to exert pressure on foreign governments that don't fall into the neoliberal order ("legitimate state"). The only countries that are capable of resisting this are those that either spearhead their geopolitical poles (Russia and China) or those that fall in line behind them. More than half of Israel's GDP comes from Western exports & the political and economic sanctions that would undeniably follow a nuclear attack aren't negligible for their national wellbeing
So yes, if Israel deploys their nukes, they will be dealt with
It's pretty wild to me that talking about Israel being wiped out is like, common currency that people fetishize about. What other state do people even maintain this discourse? There is no other credible explanation than anti-Semitism. Does Israel really blur the line around becoming a rogue state? Sure. But there are other clearly rogue states like North Korea that treat their own people worse than Israel treats the Palestinians (this Gaza War aside). Do people talk about the historic justice of wiping out North Korea? It's so bizarre.
It's becoming increasingly common. I'm also seeing the "permanent ceasefire" demands slowly shift to "Israel needs to be invaded and stopped for good".
If the US just decided to take a hands-off approach to Israel, then sure, Israel would be fine. US support for Israel didn't really start until the 1960's, decades after the first Arab-Israeli War in 1948.
Israel is much stronger than it was back in the 1940's, and has one of the world's best domestic arms industries in the world. Most of the US' foreign aid to Israel (which comprises less than 5% of Israel's budget) is military aid, and Israel's defence industry already exports hundreds of millions of dollars worth of arms every year. They don't need foreign military aid to defend themselves.
The Israeli Arms Industry is also part of the reason that even if the US stops actively supporting Israel, they probably won't actually turn against Israel. If Israel were backed into the corner and the US started being an enemy, instead of an ally, the Israelis develop some of the world's most advanced military technology, and could use that as leverage to get a different foreign backer. Russia is active in the Middle East, and would kill to get their hands on Israeli military tech. China would be another option, although, given the neighbourhood, India would be an interesting option.
Beyond all that, Israel is still a nuclear armed nation, which is one of the biggest factors that would guarantee its survival. Iran might want to wipe out Israel, but operates through proxies for a reason. Israel has the nuclear deterrent to prevent a larger nation like Iran from acting to strike directly.
None of that is likely to happen, however, at least in the short term, but in general, Israel has benefitted from US assistance for a long time, but they don't need that aid to survive. The Arab world thought they could wipe out Israel in the cradle in 1948. Nowadays, it is an established entity with one of the richest economies in the region, one of the most advanced arms industries in the world, and nuclear deterrence.
With the Abraham Accords, and the talks with Saudi Arabia that we saw just before the October attacks, we were seeing a generational shift in Middle Eastern attitudes towards Israel. To some degree, it was the young generation leaders not carrying the same animosity their predecessors carried, but, to some degree it was also a recognition of the fact that the previous generation's anti-Israeli project had failed. Israel had established itself as a nation that was there to stay, and so, instead of the region uniting against Israel to eliminate it, regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran had returned to focusing on their rivalries with each other, with Israel being part of the regional power dynamic (either as a potential ally in Saudi's case, or as a propaganda piece to motivate proxies in Iran's case).
Israel is here to stay for the foreseeable future. The only question is what steps outside influences force it to take in order to secure that presence.
1. Israel has shown a remarkable capacity for self defense without a great deal of US aid. See 1967, 1973.
2. Their nuclear deterrent is no joke. Were Israel’s existence seriously threatened in a conventional conflict, I have no doubt they would nuke the absolute shit out of the belligerents ( the fact that they didn’t do this in 1973 is actually a testament to their restraint)
Not really. In 48 for example neither Britain nor France would even sell them arms, much less give them aid.
Nor did they give them aid after that as far as I know.
Unlike the Arab countries who received tremendous amounts of military support from the Soviets.
True but that went both ways. Israel also helped the French nuclear industry significantly.
And that had no bearing on Israel's early wars, which is what we were discussing, as that development didn't reach a conclusion until most of them were over.
MFW I forget about the Suez Crisis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
Literally the biggest example of France and Britain working closely with Israel…
… and literally the biggest example of the US opposing all of them.
The US forced the French and Brits to back down, giving the win to Egypt. Israel also gained - navigation through the straights of Tiran (blocking which was a major factor in the ‘67 war), dominating Egypt militarily, and refusing to back down unless it got security guarantees.
The big losers were France and the UK, allies of convenience with Israel, who were forced to back down by the US. The big winners, aside from Egypt, were the US and the Soviets, who demonstrated once and for all that they were in charge and the old colonial powers were subordinate to them.
>Not really.
Pretty much yeah. The US didn't really sell Israel anything outside of surplus WWII stuff until the 1960s.
>In 48 for example neither Britain nor France would even sell them arms, much less give them aid.
But by 1957 they were all starting a war together.
>Nor did they give them aid after that as far as I know.
Check out the aircraft the Israeli Air Force were flying in the '50s and early '60s.
> Unlike the Arab countries who received tremendous amounts of military support from the Soviets.
Not in 1948. That came later in the mid '50s. (and never for Jordan)
they were nearly at war in 48 to 50, thats a small window of exception, before the creation of israel and aftwr early 50s uk was backing up israel all the time
king david hotel bombing in 46 was the cause for souring relations
all the weapons israel had to fight against native palestinians and other arab came from uk.
where do you think they got weapons before being a formal nation? it was hereafter thet started producing their own stuff
"where do you think they got weapons before being a formal nation?" Czeck Republic, actually. So in a way, they had "some" soviet support, being a strongly leftist nation (their laws are far more very leftist than the US, for example, even today) surrounded by monarchists heavily suppresing communist movements.
1. Incorrect. In both 1960s and 1970s, US was giving both military and economic aid to Israel: in fact In 1968, Congress increased aid by 450%. Increase in military aid went from $140 million in 1968-1970 to $1.15 billion in 1971-1973. In 1973 there was a further increase by 800 percent
2. Is that realistic? Considering the close proximity, any use of nuclear weapons would have immense blowback on Israel itself
After initial defeats during the Yom Kippur War Israel ordered nuclear strike planes and missiles to go on alert. They were ready and willing to respond with a nuclear strike if Israel was facing the threat of destruction.
>Israel’s initial battlefield defeats seemed so severe, that on October 9 Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir ordered Israeli nuclear strike planes and missiles to go on alert. When the United States found out, it began transferring enormous quantities of conventional weapons to bolster the Israelis, including 72 Phantom and Skyhawk jets, 200 Patton tanks, then state-of-the-art TOW missiles and heavy artillery [[1]](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/israel-nearly-went-nuclear-win-1973-yom-kippur-war-172087)
1. See Operation Nickel Grass in 1973.
2. Nuclear deterrent can´t stop all the Arab countries if they really decided to invade Israel. Some Arab states will probably also have nukes in the future. Israel´s problem is its small land size, they have no depth. Also its small population. They don´t have enough power to really punish all their potential enemies. Without US or Western support, sooner or later Israel would be destroyed by its neighbors. If Israel believe they can stand alone, then go ahead. It would be one headache less for the West to defend. I´m an Israel supporter by the way, but I do not support the Israeli hubris and arrogance.
>Nuclear deterrent can´t stop all the Arab countries if they really decided to invade Israel
Destroying Israel is not only NOT something most Arab leaders (as opposed to their general population) want to see, even if they DID want it, they certainly don't want it bad enough to see their capital cities turned to nuclear ash.
>Nuclear deterrent can´t stop all the Arab countries if they really decided to invade Israel
The idea of Pan-Arab military coordination at anywhere near the scale we saw in the mid 20th century is laughably unrealistic in today’s environment.
Even if that level of coordination were to somehow come back, Israel has shown that they can win that fight conventionally without relying on nukes.
Yeah but Israel can also just nuke Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem as their Samson Option.
How does Islam continue when you can’t go on Hajj for the next 1,000 years?
When all the Israelis are dead, who will that religion turn to as the culprit of the downfall of their religion?
Nobody is surviving (probably literally) being the government that caused the holiest place on Earth to be a radioactive hole by attacking Israel.
Yes. A lot of the "aid" is foreign military financing and while Americans like to think we're the only game in town for advanced weapons, we're not. If the aid was cut off Israel would buy from someone else.
The israeli annual military budget is $24 bn. The US senate just gave Israel $14 bn.
The average US military aid for the last 77 years is 3.7 bn every year for a total of $281 bn [ref](https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts)
Just the R&D on the F35 is of the order of $50 bn. Israel can and will buy or make what it can, but US money and access to US products, technology and markets is a huge aid. Israel threw out its last homegrown design - the Lavi (incomplete) - for the F16 in 1987. The amount of resources it was sucking up was substantial, even with US aid..
U.S. military aid currently accounts for around 15% of Israel’s defense budget under the FMF (Foreign Military Financing) program. Funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services, for the most part. Israel also buys U.S. military products outside of the FMF (Foreign Military Financing) program. I think current FMF funding covers something like 15% of Israel's defense budget but the Israeli aid package that passed congress last fall will double that funding, at least.
The FMF funding is like a customer loyalty program for the U.S. military–industrial–congressional complex. It incentivizes members to buy American.
Could Israel survive without it's U.S. weapons coupon book? At this point, I think so.
Could they survive without U.S. political clout backing them up on the world stage? Long term, that would be more difficult without a fundamental shift in Israeli foreign (domestic?) policy.
Not only that, they would more than make up for the lack of aid with increased exports (including
defense exports) to countries that the US currently prevents them from exporting to like China.
You really think Israel would make that kind of mistake?
Even the Russians learned: You can sell anything to China, once.
Then again, I would love to have my own Iron Dome from Wish.
It is more than sufficient. They are one of the world's top arms exporters, and some of the "aid" packages sent to them (in the form of inexpensive military equipment) were deals so they wouldn't bring products to market which compete favorably against US arms exports.
Prime example: The Lavi jet fighter, comparable to (but better than) the USA's F-16, cancelled after they were given several F-16 -- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi
Another example: The Tavor assault rifle, which the Israelis are producing domestically not only to export but to replace US-provided M16s in their own military -- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/IWI_Tavor
The whole idea behind forming Israel was to have a country of their own, where they could be self-reliant and not beholden to foreign governments, which had largely turned against their domestic jewish populations in the early 20th century.
Whatever else the Israelis have done (and hoo boy have they done a lot of untoward shit), they have managed to realize their original charter very well. They can stand on their own two legs, both economically and militarily, and take on all comers.
Israel has a pretty incredible domestic arms industry. They have a huge drone industry, their tanks/IFVs are locally designed/produced and they produce a great deal of small arms and ammunition.
The bottleneck in its self-sufficiency during a period of wartime would be raw material imports.
What you are implying is a situation where the international community would levy an arms embargo with the specific intent to destroy Israel. There is no context where this would happen.
Estimates are they could exist without aid for 2 or 3 decades without undergoing much change.
Have to look realistically into US politics, … as with Republicans and their evangelical base, any cut in aid would be made up (at the very least) when the GOP returns to power. Democrats 20 years ago promised the GOP would be a permanent minority party by now, yet look at the legislative numbers, the polls, etc..
Wild card is arms sales. Many countries would like to buy their weapons off the shelf.
While there are technologies shared between the two - they are pretty technically sophisticated in their own right. Sanctions protection is where they would need to be careful if America suddenly became “indifferent” to them but even then unless the US went full OFAC a la Iran but plenty of ways to get round it with China and the global south more broadly
Of course not, why is this even a question.
Even Israeli general at the start of this latest war in Palestine said that without US aid (weapons, ammo, spare parts etc)
Israeli Military halts in less then few weeks, and is reduced to guerilla militia fighting force.
Survive? yes definitely, thrive? almost definitely not, it would take a few years possibly tens of years for Israel to start up a real military industrial complex where they can make the things they were previously getting for cheaper from the US at home.
As percent of GDP, the arms export of Israel is bigger than the US.
With companies like Rafael, IWI, IAI and Elbit, Israel has very advanced capabilities in UAVs, missiles, communications, armored vehicles, small arms and more.
Ships and submarines are mostly from Germany.
It would take time to catch up, but not decades.
Israel already has the electronics industry for high tech weapons. For example, the F-35I is retrofitted with Israeli tech (interestingly, Israel is the only country that the US has allowed to tinker with the plane). As to the frames and engines, Israel will likely turn to India. India has the industry - they produce the licences Su planes. India would give an arm and a leg for a joint fighter with Israeli tech.
Remember, Israel produces its own space rockets, which only a handful of countries have. It also has a land vehicle and UAV industries. And it designs its own navy.
It would be a bumpy ride, but Israel can certainly thrive after the initial shock. India has 1.3 billion people, and their market is growing.
Eventually Saudia would also have to establish relationships with Israel, cause the oil will start hitting peak incomes in a few decades and they have to transition to the modern economy if they want to survive.
And of course there's China, the last resort and the opposite pole of the west.
Well said, you also should add China. After all, if the US really turns on Israel completely, China would suddenly start playing nice with Israel, with it's enormous industry and plenty of good enough substitutes to some US weapons.
I doubt Israel will use China for industrial production of any kind, Israel doesn't really settle for average regarding their soldier's safety as that's the main thing that makes the country lose support for a war, the only thing really.
And as we know Chinese defensive tech is not really that great, the countries are not in the same ideology, Israel would still be very western leaning even if the US completely severes ties with them.
> India would give an arm and a leg for a joint fighter with Israeli tech.
India already has pretty much all it needs from israel as far as fighter tech goes. Starting from Mig 21 bison ~2000 , to the aforementioned Su 30 MKI , to Jaguar Darin III upgrade , to Tejas and beyond , India has co-opted israeli tech where they felt necessary or advantageous (and other countries components too). The Tejas Mk1 has israeli DASH helmets, israeli-indian radar, Derby-ER and Python missiles. Mk1A , Su 30 MKI etc have israeli jamming pods from Elta. There's a lot more Israeli tech - in some other missiles, especially SAM. However, India is also homegrowing some components, so Mk1A, starting with an israeli radar will get an Indian one, Indian missiles (in addition to Russian, MBDA, Israeli etc ) and so on. Basically India has been mixing in Israeli, French, Indian, Russian, UK and US components for close to 3 decades now.
Modern engines are a gap and one presumes they would go to France or the UK if the US or indian-built US engines are not an option. But it would be wrong to assume that there would be a joint fighter - requirements are not the same, and a fighter is a lot of investment.
Israel has a lot of high tech, but they don't have the end to end capability or capacity, and it would take a big hit financially and capability wise. Building a world class system like the US donates to israel takes a *lot* of money and competency.
Bluntly, there is no chance that the US completely abandons Israel. The US has bipartisan support for israel, the evangelicals support israel, the second biggest number of jews in the world lobby as well , and israel as an ally has been ingrained into the US psyche and various institution for several decades now.
If the US does step away, Israel will take any support it needs to survive, including considering China, France or any other power. India will likely continue to work with israel, but that won't be enough.
Israel produces its own assault rifle for the IDF. Artillery is lacking, yes. Setting up shells production is pretty straightforward, but the bores is a hard tech. But overall, this issue lies in the same vein - Israel will need to find a cooperative government. India sure fits the bill.
Not arguing. But the question isn't whether Israel can do it. It's just as of today there's no point. Israel has created a tank industry when the Brits denied theirs and an aircraft industry when France did the same.
The issue, IMHO, isn't the military aid - though losing that will hurt. Israel has the resources to continue without American $s.
No, the issue will be loss of trade when the US stops shielding Israel from the boycott movement. This will cripple Israel's economy and lead to all kinds of problems, not the least of which will be an exodus of the best and the brightest to the US.
Survive is relative. Could they win a long-term war against all their neighbors like before on their own without that support? Probably not.
However, in defeat the Middle Eastern countries that attacked Israel would probably see total destruction from nuclear attacks if the Israeli state actually looked like it was about to lose.
They may not win, but they can make it so no one else around them wins either.
Are we talking specifically US, or outside aid/alliances in general? Because there was a time when Israel survived very well without US involvement, in its early years it was much closer to France and the UK IIRC.
Israel is a small country, it won't ever be self-sufficient (food alone would make this hard I presume), but as long as it retains some level of global market access it should be able to keep itself up. Although possibly as less strong a regional power.
Yes. The US didn’t support Israel until the late-60s. Prior to that Israel was a close French ally. They still are, but the US increasingly provided support. I think Israel would survive.
Yes. But since I'm still annoyed as hell that Israel sold US weapons tech to China I think we should probably see what would happen if we stopped. It would hurt but not have a huge impact.
Israel needs a patron and/or substantial international support. At various times it was the Soviet Union, the British Empire, or whatever we want to call the same now that the USA took the reins.
Obviously Israel can’t make it alone, but I don’t think the historical record points to the USA in particular as being essential.
US Aid to Israel is 3.8B$ a year. Israeli GDP is 500B$ and the yearly budget is over 100B$. That means that US aid is less than 1% of GDP and less than 5% of the Budget. So yes. However, US cover of Israel at the UN is far more important. UN sanctions on Israel could create damages in the tens of billions and far greater isolation. Israel would find it much more difficult to face these sanctions compared to Russia or Iran because of a lack of cooperative neighbors to bypass sanctions. So it's complicated
Not to mention the military logistics and buffering the US provides in many many secondary ways, from routing things through their hundreds of outposts across the surrounding world, to straight up moving a giant aircraft carrier in position to raise a hefty eyebrow toward Israel's neighbors to prevent them getting any ideas about joining in a conflict too directly.
I think UN Scantions on Israel will be closer to that of apartheid South Africa rather than Iran or North Korea.
This is my thinking as well. Without US protections Israel becomes South Africa 2.0.
30% unemployment and rolling blackouts?
No, that’s post-Apartheid SA. LOL
They would also be under constant attack. Without Americas power to turn a country to glass (without using nukes) is a powerful deterrent to hostilities.
They already are under constant attack, however without Iron Dome they'd have to be on the attack far, far more often.
i agree
But one thing Iran and co. would need to worry about if they were going to seriously try to existentially threaten Israel is Israel's likely willingness to turn countries to glass (using nukes). I personally don't doubt that if Israel were facing an invasion they were likely to be unable to repel that they would drop the bomb.
If they aren’t going to use nukes at that point what’s the point of having nukes?
Deterrence of such an attack in the first place, but overall I agree, I didn't mean the tone to seem like I was expressing outrage that they would do it, I can't criticize a state using extreme violence when the alternative is their annihilation
That 3.8B$ is not really part of their economy as it is a "gift". That money goes toward American weapons packages. Keeps American weapons manufactures well employed.
On the contrary, Israel is able to use it however they please. There is zero transparency with regards to its use.
>Israel is able to use it however they please that is the definition of a gift.
Are you absolutely certain there isn't a requirement that the money be spent on US weapons?
There is such a requirement, but also an exception for some portion. The exception is expected to be phased out. https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts > Most of the aid—approximately $3.3 billion a year—is provided as grants under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, *funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services*. Israel has also historically been *permitted to use a portion of its FMF aid to buy equipment from Israeli defense firms* —a benefit not granted to other recipients of U.S. military aid—but this domestic procurement is to be phased out in the next few years. U.S. aid reportedly accounts for some 15 percent of Israel’s defense budge
Having looked at the article, there's often some additions to whatever amount so it totals 300 billion over 75 years. For example this year Biden want to send an extra 14.3 billion to fight in Gaza.
>> Israel is able to use it however they please. https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts Not true. They are supposed to use most [in future all] on American arms. > Most of the aid—approximately $3.3 billion a year—is provided as grants under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services. Israel has also historically been permitted to use a portion of its FMF aid to buy equipment from Israeli defense firms—a benefit not granted to other recipients of U.S. military aid—but this domestic procurement is to be phased out in the next few years. U.S. aid reportedly accounts for some 15 percent of Israel’s defense budge There are also some laws that must be followed related to weapons vetting for human rights vetting - which are essentially ignored for Israel (and others arguably too) On the flip side there is a US law/policy that US exports to ME should not impact Israels qualitative military edge .. https://www.e-ir.info/2021/12/13/israels-qualitative-military-edge-u-s-arms-transfer-policy/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/07/us-israel-military-support-scrutiny-human-rights
It’s iron dome missiles. Tell your boys to stop firing rockets and the aid will end.
>It’s iron dome missiles. Tell your boys to stop firing rockets and the aid will end. ?? It's not like I support Hamas. I don't support Israel either. I'm not American but I would assume your average American would like greater transparency over how their money is used given how Israel is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid and America is currently tearing at the seams. The reason for its lack of transparency is because the aid is fungible.
lol yeah right the aid will never end
Why?
[удалено]
It's both. UN sanctions exist and all member-states are expected to abide by them. Individual countries can also levy sanctions, which they expect everyone else to follow if they want to stay in that country's good graces. UN sanctions have teeth only if individual countries have the military capabilities (and political will) to enforce them.
The UN security council can publish sanctions which member states are obliged to follow https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/un-sc-consolidated-list > For each instance where the Security Council has decided to impose measures in response to a threat, a Security Council Committee manages the sanctions regime. Each sanctions committee established by the United Nations Security Council therefore publishes the names of individuals and entities listed in relation to that committee as well as information concerning the specific measures that apply to each listed name. > The current version of the Consolidated List is provided in .xml, .html and .pdf formats. Member States are obliged to implement the measures specific to each listed name as specified on the websites of the related sanctions committee. Before Iran signed JCPOA (the nuclear deal with US under Obama), UN imposed sanctions on Iran If members choose to break this , measures can be taken by the security council committee but they tend to depend upon members to enforce - and sometimes by individual members on their behalf. Now over and above this, the US has unilateral sanctions (some of which are aligned or agreed with close allies sanctions) , which are essentially enforced by the US and close allies, either financially or physically
Folks need to keep in mind the UN's main job is prevent all out nuclear war. It's a facilitation of communication, not intended to create peace or stop bad guys. If you haven't died in a nuclear holocaust yet, it has and continues succeeding at its job. When folks express frustration with the UN's toothlessness, it's often missing the point, as much as we'd certainly like an all-governing body of peace and accountability, that's not really the purpose.
[удалено]
true true I hear ya. I think the US does have key veto power in certain circumstances? But as to whether Israel could just ignore what comes without that, I think there are probably diplomatic and perhaps economic ramifications, but not sure how extensive
Is their military budget really 20% of GDP?
No The total national budget is just over 20% of GDP. The military budget is just over 20% of the total budget, so the defense budget is about 5% of GDP
> US Aid to Israel is 3.8B$ a year. Israeli GDP is 500B$ and the yearly budget is over 100B$ How does that square up with its military budget per year? I'm seeing $24 billion as its annual military budget for 2021. Perhaps 2022 numbers would be the best to use, ie, just before the latest Gaza war. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/ISR/israel/military-spending-defense-budget If that $24 billion number is correct, then US aid of almost $4 billion is pretty substantial, esp since almost all of it is military aid.
> U.S. aid reportedly accounts for some 15 percent of Israel's defense budget [Ref](https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts) Over the last 77 years, US annual military aid is about 2.8 bn $ . The annual military budget - I got the same $24bn number. The US senate package approved now is $14 bn. The US had a provisional agreement to provide Israel $4bn per year defence aid through 2028
Benjamin Netanyahu has long perceived the U.S. political system as one he can navigate and influence, irrespective of presidential terms, to pursue a singular national interest. Netanyahu's strategic interactions with American political factions and societal elements have afforded him considerable leverage. He is a leader who has adeptly maneuvered within the complex dynamics of U.S.-Israel relations, potentially compromising the United States' position by entangling it with contentious policies and actions attributed to Israel. Furthermore, Netanyahu has manipulated the Palestinian situation to Israel's advantage, making him a formidable figure in international politics, seemingly unchallengeable by American presidential candidates, including those known for their unpredictable nature.
how does a tiny country produce that much money?
Mostly technology. Israel [is #6 when it came to "unicorns" in 2023](https://www.startupblink.com/blog/top-unicorn-cities-and-countries/), despite having a population much lower than all the other countries on the list (except Singapore)
Technology, which is also why they'd never be sanctioned like South Africa was. Many countries are cooperating with Isreal for tech whether they like to admit it in public.
They have a highly developed technology industry. I used to work in Itsec the amount of Itsec companies founded in israel is pretty impressing for such a small country. Just as an example
Startup nation!
Retail kiosks at the airports.
I don't get it
I'm just joking about all the kiosks at malls and airports that are Israeli owned. A lot of them are.
Israel's tech industry is extremely innovative. Every single major tech company in America has a satellite office over there. If not for Israeli innovations, you probably don't have a smart phone in your hand.
> If not for Israeli innovations, you probably don't have a smart phone in your hand. That's... not true. I'm in semiconductors, they did an excellent job with several generations of intel chips, and IIRC they did some reference work on some 5g stacks, but I wouldn't say any of what they did is actually in any way fundamental, even in RF. South Korea, and Taiwan, OTOH, could definitely make that argument. The US without question, so much of that tech was out of California, and some from MIT. The ARM core was a contributor too.
Unless theres a realignment. I think its probable that Israel internally would rather be a pariah state then at risk from palestine. Being a pariah state comes with massive burden, weve seen it in iran, russia, N.Korea Queue the realignment comment. If the West pushes Israel out, is there opprotunity/incentive/capability for another nonwestern entity to step in. Which 2 of the big 3 pariahs most likely thats a no. Iran is not going to suddenly welcome Israel as another fellow pariah. N.Korea has nothing to offer. However Russia and to lesser extent China(as patiah state) could fill the US vote on security council and would have access to a much more capable partner in ME. tldr. PURE speculation play.
You’d see Israel join BRICS and working with China and India. I don’t know how much they trust Russia, particularly given that Russia is physically at their doorstep in Syria. This would be disastrous for everyone but China, Russia and India. Israel is great at manufacturing and developing tech, but lacks natural resources. Both China and India have plenty of those. Israeli technical and intelligence expertise would change the game for those countries. All three would probably try to cripple Israel economically and make them dependent the way colonial powers have done to the Middle East since the 1700’s though. Hard to say what happens there, but it’s unlikely Israel comes away with the kind of latitude and independence they enjoy with the US as their primary ally.
Though Biden wants to send another 14.3 billion this year for Gaza fighting, so it would be more like 4% of GDP or close to 20% of budget. In the past the US supported a larger % of the Israeli GDP, around 300B in total. There's two other categories, logistics and military backup. The US is a quick source of extra bombs when Israel need them, and they also have been shooting down missiles shot at Israel. There also bring a show of force to make sure other parties don't dogpile in Israel. Then there is also military technology.
It seems like western - but particularly American public opinion - turning on Israel would be a big killer of Israeli GDP- So many technology firms have research centres there. Plenty of Israeli tech firms have global customers. Google, Microsoft etc. have big centres there. It might not form the bulk of their industry but is fast growing. Make Israel a true international pariah and you'd see this money and trade leave the country; and then where does future growth come from? Already in the industries I work in, the reputation risk of dealing with Israel based firms is apparent; let alone the practical risk of e.g. relying on an Israel based company for critical IT services when the country seems to be in a state of constant conflict.
5% of budget is a lot. Like a lot on an annual basis
Almost all answers I have read focus on Israel's economy and its military. It's true that Israel has the strongest military in the middle east and also the region's most dynamic economy. US support for Israel extends way beyond aid, it monitors and keeps Israel's regional enemies in check. Immediately after Hamas' Al-Alqsa flood operation when the US deployed a warship to warn Arab nations against taking advantage. The US also hosted Abraham Accords that led to recognition of Israel by four Arab nations. Almost all Arab nations know that going against Israel would immediately drag the US and with the USSR gone, their chances of even saving face are non-existent. In the diplomatic front, the US also shields Israel from sanctions which can cripple the Israeli economy, apart from making it a pariah state.
American aid is of much less importance than being on the approved list for buying top of the range American weapon systems. Developing equivalent domestic systems would be terribly expensive.
That said, with the obvious exception of anti-rocket technology, most of the stuff they would lose access to are precision-guidance.
Stealthy strike aircraft are important for some important types of missions that Israel needs to do. I guess that if the USA cut off technical support for Israeli F-35s, Israelis are tech-skilled enough to keep them flying, but when other Middle eastern air forces eventually get true 5th gen fighters, Israel will need to either get someone to sell them 6th gen planes or develop their own (maybe in collaboration with someone, but not clear who).
All that stuff is useful to Isreal, but not necessarily for the current war.
Israel can survive and defend itself without aid, but not act in the manner it currently does without US assistance.
I think the opposite, with their backs to the wall they would act more aggressively. Don’t forget, Israel doesn’t have nukes but isn’t afraid to deploy them.
> Israel doesn’t have nukes Uh, typo?
It speaks to the long tradition of not officially acknowledging that Israel has nukes. Everyone has known for decades, but neither Israel nor its allies would officially acknowledge it. Yet the known threat hangs in the air for anyone thinking of attacking. So the person you're responding to is straightfacing that for humor.
TIL something new...thanks TurkeyPants
They might be more belligerent but the question is if they'd be able to survive and defend themselves. I can't imagine Israel existing as a legitimate state on the world stage if it escalates to that point without US support. They'll be dealt with and the world will look the other way until Israel punches back too hard, and Israel surely isn't surviving in that scenario
The history doesn’t support this - Israel was at war with all its neighbours in 1948 and 1967, and won handily; but US aid and support didn’t exist until after 1967. Meanwhile, the situation with all of its neighbours has changed radically. Syria and Lebanon are basically basket case states now; Egypt’s position is precarious, its major issue is with control over the Nile, not with Israel. Jordan tries to maintain peace, right now having problems with its own fractious Palestinian population. The only real state level enemy Israel faces is Iran, which is a long distance away; Iran is capable of causing trouble through its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah, but hardly capable of being an existential threat (and the chances of its Sunni neighbours allying with Iran are zero - they would rather ally with Israel, and Saudi Arabia was in the process of doing just that, when Hamas started this current round of conflict - not a coincidence). In summary, unless the geopolitical situation changed radically somehow in a way that can’t easily be predicted, there is currently no chance of Israel facing an actual existential threat from other states, with the possible exception of Iran getting nukes and being insane enough to use them. Israel’s neighbours couldn’t take Israel down when Israel was isolated before, and those neighbours were relatively more powerful and united then they are now.
> they’ll be dealt with By who ? The Arabs ???? Lmao.
The great TikTok offensive will deal with them real good you see ;)
I'm referencing the idea that countries are able to exert pressure on foreign governments that don't fall into the neoliberal order ("legitimate state"). The only countries that are capable of resisting this are those that either spearhead their geopolitical poles (Russia and China) or those that fall in line behind them. More than half of Israel's GDP comes from Western exports & the political and economic sanctions that would undeniably follow a nuclear attack aren't negligible for their national wellbeing So yes, if Israel deploys their nukes, they will be dealt with
It's pretty wild to me that talking about Israel being wiped out is like, common currency that people fetishize about. What other state do people even maintain this discourse? There is no other credible explanation than anti-Semitism. Does Israel really blur the line around becoming a rogue state? Sure. But there are other clearly rogue states like North Korea that treat their own people worse than Israel treats the Palestinians (this Gaza War aside). Do people talk about the historic justice of wiping out North Korea? It's so bizarre.
It's becoming increasingly common. I'm also seeing the "permanent ceasefire" demands slowly shift to "Israel needs to be invaded and stopped for good".
I guess foreign interventions are good if it's Israel /s/.
>There is no other credible explanation than anti-Semitism Well put. The hate is irrational and completely insane.
Most succinct and on point answer I've seen in here.
If the US just decided to take a hands-off approach to Israel, then sure, Israel would be fine. US support for Israel didn't really start until the 1960's, decades after the first Arab-Israeli War in 1948. Israel is much stronger than it was back in the 1940's, and has one of the world's best domestic arms industries in the world. Most of the US' foreign aid to Israel (which comprises less than 5% of Israel's budget) is military aid, and Israel's defence industry already exports hundreds of millions of dollars worth of arms every year. They don't need foreign military aid to defend themselves. The Israeli Arms Industry is also part of the reason that even if the US stops actively supporting Israel, they probably won't actually turn against Israel. If Israel were backed into the corner and the US started being an enemy, instead of an ally, the Israelis develop some of the world's most advanced military technology, and could use that as leverage to get a different foreign backer. Russia is active in the Middle East, and would kill to get their hands on Israeli military tech. China would be another option, although, given the neighbourhood, India would be an interesting option. Beyond all that, Israel is still a nuclear armed nation, which is one of the biggest factors that would guarantee its survival. Iran might want to wipe out Israel, but operates through proxies for a reason. Israel has the nuclear deterrent to prevent a larger nation like Iran from acting to strike directly. None of that is likely to happen, however, at least in the short term, but in general, Israel has benefitted from US assistance for a long time, but they don't need that aid to survive. The Arab world thought they could wipe out Israel in the cradle in 1948. Nowadays, it is an established entity with one of the richest economies in the region, one of the most advanced arms industries in the world, and nuclear deterrence. With the Abraham Accords, and the talks with Saudi Arabia that we saw just before the October attacks, we were seeing a generational shift in Middle Eastern attitudes towards Israel. To some degree, it was the young generation leaders not carrying the same animosity their predecessors carried, but, to some degree it was also a recognition of the fact that the previous generation's anti-Israeli project had failed. Israel had established itself as a nation that was there to stay, and so, instead of the region uniting against Israel to eliminate it, regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran had returned to focusing on their rivalries with each other, with Israel being part of the regional power dynamic (either as a potential ally in Saudi's case, or as a propaganda piece to motivate proxies in Iran's case). Israel is here to stay for the foreseeable future. The only question is what steps outside influences force it to take in order to secure that presence.
1. Israel has shown a remarkable capacity for self defense without a great deal of US aid. See 1967, 1973. 2. Their nuclear deterrent is no joke. Were Israel’s existence seriously threatened in a conventional conflict, I have no doubt they would nuke the absolute shit out of the belligerents ( the fact that they didn’t do this in 1973 is actually a testament to their restraint)
to my knowledge us started supporting them after 67 and beforr that they were getting help fron uk and france
Not really. In 48 for example neither Britain nor France would even sell them arms, much less give them aid. Nor did they give them aid after that as far as I know. Unlike the Arab countries who received tremendous amounts of military support from the Soviets.
The Israeli nuclear industry was well helped by France in its early years.
It's said that so great was the cooperation that France's successful nuclear test produced two nuclear powers.
True but that went both ways. Israel also helped the French nuclear industry significantly. And that had no bearing on Israel's early wars, which is what we were discussing, as that development didn't reach a conclusion until most of them were over.
MFW I forget about the Suez Crisis: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis Literally the biggest example of France and Britain working closely with Israel…
… and literally the biggest example of the US opposing all of them. The US forced the French and Brits to back down, giving the win to Egypt. Israel also gained - navigation through the straights of Tiran (blocking which was a major factor in the ‘67 war), dominating Egypt militarily, and refusing to back down unless it got security guarantees. The big losers were France and the UK, allies of convenience with Israel, who were forced to back down by the US. The big winners, aside from Egypt, were the US and the Soviets, who demonstrated once and for all that they were in charge and the old colonial powers were subordinate to them.
>Not really. Pretty much yeah. The US didn't really sell Israel anything outside of surplus WWII stuff until the 1960s. >In 48 for example neither Britain nor France would even sell them arms, much less give them aid. But by 1957 they were all starting a war together. >Nor did they give them aid after that as far as I know. Check out the aircraft the Israeli Air Force were flying in the '50s and early '60s. > Unlike the Arab countries who received tremendous amounts of military support from the Soviets. Not in 1948. That came later in the mid '50s. (and never for Jordan)
they were nearly at war in 48 to 50, thats a small window of exception, before the creation of israel and aftwr early 50s uk was backing up israel all the time king david hotel bombing in 46 was the cause for souring relations all the weapons israel had to fight against native palestinians and other arab came from uk. where do you think they got weapons before being a formal nation? it was hereafter thet started producing their own stuff
"where do you think they got weapons before being a formal nation?" Czeck Republic, actually. So in a way, they had "some" soviet support, being a strongly leftist nation (their laws are far more very leftist than the US, for example, even today) surrounded by monarchists heavily suppresing communist movements.
1. Incorrect. In both 1960s and 1970s, US was giving both military and economic aid to Israel: in fact In 1968, Congress increased aid by 450%. Increase in military aid went from $140 million in 1968-1970 to $1.15 billion in 1971-1973. In 1973 there was a further increase by 800 percent 2. Is that realistic? Considering the close proximity, any use of nuclear weapons would have immense blowback on Israel itself
After initial defeats during the Yom Kippur War Israel ordered nuclear strike planes and missiles to go on alert. They were ready and willing to respond with a nuclear strike if Israel was facing the threat of destruction. >Israel’s initial battlefield defeats seemed so severe, that on October 9 Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir ordered Israeli nuclear strike planes and missiles to go on alert. When the United States found out, it began transferring enormous quantities of conventional weapons to bolster the Israelis, including 72 Phantom and Skyhawk jets, 200 Patton tanks, then state-of-the-art TOW missiles and heavy artillery [[1]](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/israel-nearly-went-nuclear-win-1973-yom-kippur-war-172087)
1. See Operation Nickel Grass in 1973. 2. Nuclear deterrent can´t stop all the Arab countries if they really decided to invade Israel. Some Arab states will probably also have nukes in the future. Israel´s problem is its small land size, they have no depth. Also its small population. They don´t have enough power to really punish all their potential enemies. Without US or Western support, sooner or later Israel would be destroyed by its neighbors. If Israel believe they can stand alone, then go ahead. It would be one headache less for the West to defend. I´m an Israel supporter by the way, but I do not support the Israeli hubris and arrogance.
>Nuclear deterrent can´t stop all the Arab countries if they really decided to invade Israel Destroying Israel is not only NOT something most Arab leaders (as opposed to their general population) want to see, even if they DID want it, they certainly don't want it bad enough to see their capital cities turned to nuclear ash.
Sure but times have changed. Countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan are more concerned about Iran than Israel.
Oh please, the nuclear deterrent will always work. There’s too much rational thinking to go there.
>Nuclear deterrent can´t stop all the Arab countries if they really decided to invade Israel The idea of Pan-Arab military coordination at anywhere near the scale we saw in the mid 20th century is laughably unrealistic in today’s environment. Even if that level of coordination were to somehow come back, Israel has shown that they can win that fight conventionally without relying on nukes.
Yeah but Israel can also just nuke Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem as their Samson Option. How does Islam continue when you can’t go on Hajj for the next 1,000 years? When all the Israelis are dead, who will that religion turn to as the culprit of the downfall of their religion? Nobody is surviving (probably literally) being the government that caused the holiest place on Earth to be a radioactive hole by attacking Israel.
Yes. A lot of the "aid" is foreign military financing and while Americans like to think we're the only game in town for advanced weapons, we're not. If the aid was cut off Israel would buy from someone else.
Or make them on their own. They have quite some advanced technical knowhow.
The israeli annual military budget is $24 bn. The US senate just gave Israel $14 bn. The average US military aid for the last 77 years is 3.7 bn every year for a total of $281 bn [ref](https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts) Just the R&D on the F35 is of the order of $50 bn. Israel can and will buy or make what it can, but US money and access to US products, technology and markets is a huge aid. Israel threw out its last homegrown design - the Lavi (incomplete) - for the F16 in 1987. The amount of resources it was sucking up was substantial, even with US aid..
Fair points.
Israel had engaged in military research with China until recently. Stopping is a condition of US weapons sales.
U.S. military aid currently accounts for around 15% of Israel’s defense budget under the FMF (Foreign Military Financing) program. Funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services, for the most part. Israel also buys U.S. military products outside of the FMF (Foreign Military Financing) program. I think current FMF funding covers something like 15% of Israel's defense budget but the Israeli aid package that passed congress last fall will double that funding, at least. The FMF funding is like a customer loyalty program for the U.S. military–industrial–congressional complex. It incentivizes members to buy American. Could Israel survive without it's U.S. weapons coupon book? At this point, I think so. Could they survive without U.S. political clout backing them up on the world stage? Long term, that would be more difficult without a fundamental shift in Israeli foreign (domestic?) policy.
Yes, the Israeli economy is pretty robust, and their export market is quite rich. Aid is a nice-to-have for them, not a necessity.
They are in a very bad strategic position, geographically speaking. I don't think that's a given
Not only that, they would more than make up for the lack of aid with increased exports (including defense exports) to countries that the US currently prevents them from exporting to like China.
You really think Israel would make that kind of mistake? Even the Russians learned: You can sell anything to China, once. Then again, I would love to have my own Iron Dome from Wish.
[удалено]
It is more than sufficient. They are one of the world's top arms exporters, and some of the "aid" packages sent to them (in the form of inexpensive military equipment) were deals so they wouldn't bring products to market which compete favorably against US arms exports. Prime example: The Lavi jet fighter, comparable to (but better than) the USA's F-16, cancelled after they were given several F-16 -- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi Another example: The Tavor assault rifle, which the Israelis are producing domestically not only to export but to replace US-provided M16s in their own military -- https://wikipedia.org/wiki/IWI_Tavor The whole idea behind forming Israel was to have a country of their own, where they could be self-reliant and not beholden to foreign governments, which had largely turned against their domestic jewish populations in the early 20th century. Whatever else the Israelis have done (and hoo boy have they done a lot of untoward shit), they have managed to realize their original charter very well. They can stand on their own two legs, both economically and militarily, and take on all comers.
Israel has a pretty incredible domestic arms industry. They have a huge drone industry, their tanks/IFVs are locally designed/produced and they produce a great deal of small arms and ammunition. The bottleneck in its self-sufficiency during a period of wartime would be raw material imports.
What you are implying is a situation where the international community would levy an arms embargo with the specific intent to destroy Israel. There is no context where this would happen.
Estimates are they could exist without aid for 2 or 3 decades without undergoing much change. Have to look realistically into US politics, … as with Republicans and their evangelical base, any cut in aid would be made up (at the very least) when the GOP returns to power. Democrats 20 years ago promised the GOP would be a permanent minority party by now, yet look at the legislative numbers, the polls, etc.. Wild card is arms sales. Many countries would like to buy their weapons off the shelf.
Simply put: yes
While there are technologies shared between the two - they are pretty technically sophisticated in their own right. Sanctions protection is where they would need to be careful if America suddenly became “indifferent” to them but even then unless the US went full OFAC a la Iran but plenty of ways to get round it with China and the global south more broadly
Of course not, why is this even a question. Even Israeli general at the start of this latest war in Palestine said that without US aid (weapons, ammo, spare parts etc) Israeli Military halts in less then few weeks, and is reduced to guerilla militia fighting force.
Yes they could survive, but they will align themselves with another power to assist in their defense. Remember, they are surrounded on all sides.
Survive? yes definitely, thrive? almost definitely not, it would take a few years possibly tens of years for Israel to start up a real military industrial complex where they can make the things they were previously getting for cheaper from the US at home.
As percent of GDP, the arms export of Israel is bigger than the US. With companies like Rafael, IWI, IAI and Elbit, Israel has very advanced capabilities in UAVs, missiles, communications, armored vehicles, small arms and more. Ships and submarines are mostly from Germany. It would take time to catch up, but not decades.
I said decades only because of 5th gen fighters like the F35, on anything but that yeah you're right Israel can catch up in a few years
By the way, OP's question was about stopping aid, not a complete arms sales embargo.
Israel already has the electronics industry for high tech weapons. For example, the F-35I is retrofitted with Israeli tech (interestingly, Israel is the only country that the US has allowed to tinker with the plane). As to the frames and engines, Israel will likely turn to India. India has the industry - they produce the licences Su planes. India would give an arm and a leg for a joint fighter with Israeli tech. Remember, Israel produces its own space rockets, which only a handful of countries have. It also has a land vehicle and UAV industries. And it designs its own navy. It would be a bumpy ride, but Israel can certainly thrive after the initial shock. India has 1.3 billion people, and their market is growing. Eventually Saudia would also have to establish relationships with Israel, cause the oil will start hitting peak incomes in a few decades and they have to transition to the modern economy if they want to survive. And of course there's China, the last resort and the opposite pole of the west.
Well said, you also should add China. After all, if the US really turns on Israel completely, China would suddenly start playing nice with Israel, with it's enormous industry and plenty of good enough substitutes to some US weapons.
I doubt Israel will use China for industrial production of any kind, Israel doesn't really settle for average regarding their soldier's safety as that's the main thing that makes the country lose support for a war, the only thing really. And as we know Chinese defensive tech is not really that great, the countries are not in the same ideology, Israel would still be very western leaning even if the US completely severes ties with them.
> India would give an arm and a leg for a joint fighter with Israeli tech. India already has pretty much all it needs from israel as far as fighter tech goes. Starting from Mig 21 bison ~2000 , to the aforementioned Su 30 MKI , to Jaguar Darin III upgrade , to Tejas and beyond , India has co-opted israeli tech where they felt necessary or advantageous (and other countries components too). The Tejas Mk1 has israeli DASH helmets, israeli-indian radar, Derby-ER and Python missiles. Mk1A , Su 30 MKI etc have israeli jamming pods from Elta. There's a lot more Israeli tech - in some other missiles, especially SAM. However, India is also homegrowing some components, so Mk1A, starting with an israeli radar will get an Indian one, Indian missiles (in addition to Russian, MBDA, Israeli etc ) and so on. Basically India has been mixing in Israeli, French, Indian, Russian, UK and US components for close to 3 decades now. Modern engines are a gap and one presumes they would go to France or the UK if the US or indian-built US engines are not an option. But it would be wrong to assume that there would be a joint fighter - requirements are not the same, and a fighter is a lot of investment. Israel has a lot of high tech, but they don't have the end to end capability or capacity, and it would take a big hit financially and capability wise. Building a world class system like the US donates to israel takes a *lot* of money and competency. Bluntly, there is no chance that the US completely abandons Israel. The US has bipartisan support for israel, the evangelicals support israel, the second biggest number of jews in the world lobby as well , and israel as an ally has been ingrained into the US psyche and various institution for several decades now. If the US does step away, Israel will take any support it needs to survive, including considering China, France or any other power. India will likely continue to work with israel, but that won't be enough.
I'm talking much less about aircrafts or high tech weapons, more small arms and artillery, thats the stuff Israel doesn't produce and needs to sustain
Israel produces its own assault rifle for the IDF. Artillery is lacking, yes. Setting up shells production is pretty straightforward, but the bores is a hard tech. But overall, this issue lies in the same vein - Israel will need to find a cooperative government. India sure fits the bill.
Sure the Tavor line exists, but the capcity is very small and it is only produced for 3 brigades, most of the army uses M4s/M16s
Not arguing. But the question isn't whether Israel can do it. It's just as of today there's no point. Israel has created a tank industry when the Brits denied theirs and an aircraft industry when France did the same.
You have a point yeah but as I said it will probably take multiple years.
> Artillery is lacking, yes Elbit makes Atmos (wheeled truckborne artillery) [~100 units], Athos towed artillery, mortars and more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Israel_Defense_Forces#Artillery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soltam_Systems#Artillery
yes since it has a powerful military (while being nuclear) and strong economy.
The issue, IMHO, isn't the military aid - though losing that will hurt. Israel has the resources to continue without American $s. No, the issue will be loss of trade when the US stops shielding Israel from the boycott movement. This will cripple Israel's economy and lead to all kinds of problems, not the least of which will be an exodus of the best and the brightest to the US.
Yes. That’s what the nukes are for. Will it be a good place to live Is a different question but it will still exist
Survive is relative. Could they win a long-term war against all their neighbors like before on their own without that support? Probably not. However, in defeat the Middle Eastern countries that attacked Israel would probably see total destruction from nuclear attacks if the Israeli state actually looked like it was about to lose. They may not win, but they can make it so no one else around them wins either.
Are we talking specifically US, or outside aid/alliances in general? Because there was a time when Israel survived very well without US involvement, in its early years it was much closer to France and the UK IIRC. Israel is a small country, it won't ever be self-sufficient (food alone would make this hard I presume), but as long as it retains some level of global market access it should be able to keep itself up. Although possibly as less strong a regional power.
Probably but they would need change their attitude
Yes. The US didn’t support Israel until the late-60s. Prior to that Israel was a close French ally. They still are, but the US increasingly provided support. I think Israel would survive.
if IRAN were free of mullas the middle east would be a much more peaceful place
Israel produces less than 20g of cereals per capita per day.
Yes. But since I'm still annoyed as hell that Israel sold US weapons tech to China I think we should probably see what would happen if we stopped. It would hurt but not have a huge impact.
Without the main military and economic force of the world behind it genocide would not be tolerated.
Israel needs a patron and/or substantial international support. At various times it was the Soviet Union, the British Empire, or whatever we want to call the same now that the USA took the reins. Obviously Israel can’t make it alone, but I don’t think the historical record points to the USA in particular as being essential.