The pro-Israel community is keeping a close eye on the Clinton administration’s ambitious plan to revamp foreign aid, as the proposal begins to make its way through Congress.
Designed to bring foreign aid out of what the administration considers an obsolete Cold War aid structure, the plan would allow a continuation of Israel’s $3 billion annual installment of U.S. foreign aid, at least for now.
But despite this reassurance, some backers of Israel — while supportive of the overall concept of foreign aid reform — are concerned about elements of the reform plan.
For example, the revamped aid plan would switch from the decades-old system of providing aid to specific countries to a new format whereby aid is designated based on broad international objectives.
The administration has called for $21 billion in fiscal year 1995 on spending on international affairs, of which $14 billion would go to foreign aid.
The objectives include building democracy, promoting sustainable development and promoting peace.
Aid for Israel and Egypt, the Camp David countries, is found under the “promoting peace” category, and accounts for the majority of aid that would be disbursed in that category under the administration’s plan.
The “promoting peace” category totals $6.4 billion, of which $5.5 billion would go to regional peace and security.
Egypt receives $2.1 billion annually.
“The priority we attach to peace in the Middle East is reflected by the fact that our request this year is $5.2 billion, $5.1 billion of which would go for Israel and Egypt, the same level as last year,” Secretary of State Warren Christopher recently told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations.
The sense among some pro-Israel activists is that Israel will emerge with its aid intact.
Congress will only be interested in tinkering with parts of the foreign aid system that do not work, and aid to Israel does not fall into that category, these activists argue.
AID TO ISRAEL MAY NOT BE GUARANTEED
But some in the pro-Israel community continue to worry that if aid to Israel is formally justified solely on the basis of the Middle East peace process, the aid will not necessarily be guaranteed in the long run.
“What if Israel is at peace with some neighbors but not Iran and Iraq, or if the peace process breaks down completely?” one Hill staffer asked. “The language (in the administration proposal) is so narrow.”
Others worry that the formulation in the new plan discounts Israel’s value to the United States as a democratic ally in the Middle East.
At a recent hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Eric Fingerhut (D-Ohio) touched on these concerns.
Fingerhut asked Christopher whether placing all the aid to Israel and Egypt under the “promoting peace” category might result in “conveying a different message than we wish to convey about the strategic importance of the democracy and the open election processes in the Middle East.”
Christopher said that “the first step here has to be to end the conflict which has just monopolized the attention of most of the countries in that area.”
He added, however, that “in the longer term we obviously will be promoting democracy there as well.”
While most of the pro-Israel community has been supportive of the Clinton administration’s approach to Israel and do not think he would act to harm the Jewish state, they worry about how this aid system — which would place more decisions in the hands of the executive branch — would be used in the hands of a less-sympathetic administration.
The current foreign aid system was enacted in 1961.
Another concern involves the administration’s desire to eliminate “earmarks” — the congressional designations of how specific money is to be spent.
Some pro-Israel activists say this battle is not new.
They note that past administrations and Congresses have fought over earmarks and over who has the final say on how U.S. dollars are spent.
They also point out that the fight over earmarks extends beyond aid to Israel and even beyond foreign aid.
But other pro-Israel sources say they are worried about this latest battle to get rid of earmarks, because with fewer earmarks, and in the context of foreign aid reform, pro-Israel members of Congress would have less say over the specifics of Israel’s aid package.
EARMARKS FOR ISRAEL MAY BE INEVITABLE
The administration, for its part, seems to have concluded that earmarks for aid to Israel and Egypt are inevitable, at least for the time being.
In response to a question from Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at recent Senate hearings, Christopher acknowledged that “ultimately we did support an earmark for Egypt and Israel. We began the year hoping those could be avoided and that assurances could be given by consultation, but we did ultimately support an earmark for Egypt and Israel.”
Christopher added, “We’d like to start out with a no-earmark bill, but I’m realistic enough to know that we’ll probably end up where we did last year.”
“The Israel earmark is around for a few more years,” predicted one Hill aide, at least in part because it is “one of the only main consensus issues left for the Jewish community.”
For the still-strong Jewish lobby, the aide said, “the $3 billion earmark is still the rallying cry.”
Jewish leaders have been assured repeatedly by the administration that Israel’s aid will remain intact for now.
But some pro-Israel sources on Capitol Hill have expressed concern about what will happen to other longtime practices, such as congressional designations of exactly how and when and under what circumstances aid to Israel is disbursed, in a future with fewer earmarks.
“We want to find out what to substitute for that if there are no earmarks,” one Hill aide commented.
And some in the Jewish community are looking to the long term, concerned that competition for foreign aid will increase, and that Israel, the largest recipient of foreign aid, will be the focus of much of this attention.
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, for example, is studying the long-term implications of foreign aid reform.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
