Looking for love in the wallet

WASHINGTON - There is a famous story about prime minister Levi Eshkol. In his office, Eshkol hears a complaint about a drought in the Negev and replies, "Lucky it's not in Kansas." There are many variations of this story. Sometimes it's a group of farmers who come to complain, and sometimes one of his advisors. Sometimes Eshkol relates specifically to Kansas and other times to the entire United States. Sometimes he says "luckily" and sometimes he says "that's not so bad." But all of the stories have the same underlying moral: Israel's well-being is just as dependent on Kansas' farmers as it is on Israel's farmers, if not more so.

This belief has taken root in Israel far too deeply. American aid has brought a great deal of benefit, often critical benefit, to Israel's economy and welfare. But the assumption that the country's well-being is impossible without American aid is incorrect, even harmful. Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in relinquishing "civilian" aid 10 years ago - a gradual relinquishing, sweetened by an increase in "defense" aid - started a process that proves this very notion. Now the time has come to consider again whether it is desirable for Israel to request aid from the American taxpayer and if so, how much. Should the current level of aid be maintained, should more be requested or should it aspire to reduce the burden on American coffers - a rollback which will teach Israel to get by on its own, at least in routine times? Many mistaken assumptions about aid prevail. A discussion of whether it is essential must take into account that while Israel enjoys the financial aid, a far more important aspect of American support is the diplomatic umbrella it provides. Moreover, the financial aid does not help only the Israelis; the American defense industry also benefits from it. Many administrations have favored this aid on the assumption that it serves as an effective persuasive tool in talks with Israel; the aid often ties Jerusalem's hands and gives Washington the feeling that it is entitled to intervene in its affairs. Regardless, even without its aid, Israel would still be dependent on the United States.

The government will have to make a difficult decision, as there are many arguments in favor of giving up aid, at least in part. For example, the need to preserve Israel's good reputation in America, as a country that brings benefit to the U.S. and not just burdens it. Of even greater importance is Israel's need to extricate itself from financial dependency. Economic aid, in principle, should be a temporary arrangement. A country should not be a permanent welfare beneficiary.

Nevertheless, most of the arguments in favor of American aid are still valid today. President Gerald Ford, not a particularly good friend to Israel, was eventually persuaded that arming Israel in fact increases the chances that it will take considerable risks in the peace process. Presidents before and after him also held this belief, from John F. Kennedy, who had his share of reservations, to the more enthusiastic Bill Clinton.

They also had tangential considerations, of course. Some would condemn them for this, as they had in the past to no avail. In 1963 U.S. State Department official James Grant wrote to his superior, then secretary of state Dean Rusk, that the Israelis "are determined to use the period between now and the 1964 presidential elections" to ensure the improvement of relations with the United States. The political pressure, he wrote, was "steadily mounting."

Now, too, in the run-up to the 2008 elections, the parties and their candidates will not want to conduct battles of attrition on such a sensitive subject. After all, the exploitation of political opportunities is a legitimate move in the game of international relations. On the Israeli side, too, it is not difficult to tick off economic and strategic arguments in favor of aid - with security needs in first place. Israeli representatives will most likely hark back to these security needs - the urgency of which seems only to have accelerated in light of the developing threats in the Middle East - to explain an enlarged price tag to the Americans in the coming months.

However, the most convincing argument in favor of continuing the aid, at least right now, is in fact the least focused and is almost emotional. It is similar to American Jews' insistence on donating money to Israel, not necessarily because of the urgent need but because of the power of money in translating concern and affection into concrete action. "Put your money where your mouth is," as the adage goes.

If Israel wants the United States to continue to demonstrate its support, and if the United States wants Israel to know that its support has not been eroded, and if both of them want the world to see that the American backing is stable, then the wallet has no substitute.