The US House of Representatives, 105th Congress, in the Oct. 19, 1998 H.R.105-825 Conference Report titled "Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999," recommended:
"After extensive discussions with the
Administration, the conferees recommend the following modalities
for aid to Israel. The conferees believe that a phased reduction
in Israel's economic assistance, implemented in equal increments
of $120,000,000 per year, extended over a period of not more than
ten years, should begin this fiscal year...
conferees are also convinced that the emerging security threats in
the Middle East are significant and warrant transferring half of
Israel's reduction in economic aid to military assistance thus
enabling Israel to ensure fully its security. As a result, the
conferees recommend increasing military assistance to Israel by
$60,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 with a strong presumption that
similar annual incremental increases will be required over the
The conference agreement therefore provides that not less than
$1,080,000,000 in Economic Support Funds shall be provided for
The Institute for Public Affairs of the Jewish Orthodox Union (IPA-OU), in its "Foreign Aid to Israel – Talking Points" section (accessed Oct. 3, 2006), stated the following:
"As Israel is continually attacked by ongoing Palestinian terrorist
assaults, aid to Israel is more important than ever. Foreign aid
presents many benefits to Israel’s safety and security and to Middle
East stability. It has helped secure peace between Egypt and Israel,
has strengthened Israel’s qualitative military edge so that it can
defend itself and serve as a deterrent to aggression in the region.
Foreign aid continues to advance U.S. interests in the region here and
Ester Kurz, Legislative Strategy Director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), in a Mar. 17, 2000 debate published by the Middle East Forum, stated the following:
"It [U.S. aid] is a real benefit to the United States and Israel. We
give aid to Israel to maintain its security in a very tough region and
a very important part of the world in order to advance critical U.S.
interests. If that aid were reduced to a point that Israel couldn't buy
the equipment it needs to defend itself and maintain the peace, that
would be dangerous to us."
Todd May, PhD, Professor of Philosophy at Clemson University, in an Apr. 15, 2002 Media Monitors Network commentary titled "Why the U.S. Should End Aid to Israel," wrote:
"Aid to Israel is against any conception of U.S. interests that one
would want to hold, whether one is conservative or liberal. It subverts
the conservatives' attempts to build a far-reaching international
campaign against terrorism. It subverts the liberals' desire to direct
U.S. policy toward upholding general human rights standards. By
introducing tension with European and Arab countries, isolating the
U.S. in the United Nations, and diminishing the perception (and
reality) of the U.S. as an honest world broker, aid to Israel runs
counter to U.S. goals and short- and long term interests."
Global Exchange, an International Human Rights Organization, in its Apr. 2, 2002 website entry titled "Reasons to Oppose US Aid to Israel," stated the following:
"Billions of US taxpayer dollars are delivered to Israel each year,
ostensibly to make Israel secure. With these funds, Israel has built
one of the strongest militaries in the world in order to maintain an
illegal occupation and expand its borders. This brutal occupation is at
the root of the violence against the occupier's own civilian
population. No amount of US aid can stop this violence. In fact,
supporting the collective punishment and captivity of Palestinians will
only lead to more bloodshed for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Security and peace for Israelis depends on Israel taking its troops and
settlers back into its own country and out of someone else's land."