Controversy Over Cutting Aid to Israel

The column by Jawad F. George (“First One on the Dole Ought to Be the First Candidate for a Diet,” Op-Ed Page, Jan. 26) is remarkable. It blames Israel for just about everything bad that has ever happened, including the sad state of affairs in Panama and Colombia. I am surprised that he didn’t include the Iraq-Iran War and the events in Azerbaijan--well, maybe next time.

With an attitude like this, it is no wonder that every single Arab state (except for Egypt) considers itself to be officially at war with Israel and openly and constantly calls for its utter destruction. It is true that Israel has been able to defend itself in the past and that it is forced to maintain an army that is quite out of proportion to its population (less than that of Philadelphia) and its territory (smaller than New Jersey), but it isn’t true that it has military superiority; quite the contrary.

The Arab states enjoy a 12.6 to 1 superiority ratio in active armed forces manpower; 3.1 to 1 ratio in combat aircraft; 3.8 to 1 ratio in tanks; and 16.5 to 1 in population--75.10 million to Israel’s 4.5 million (source: “The Military Balance 1989-1990,” International Institute for Strategic Studies, London). In spite of this ongoing inferiority, Israel has always been and will remain the one dependable ally we have in that volatile region, which provides the oil we need, the sea routes we require and the influence we must exercise for our security.

It is true that Eastern Europe needs our help and help should be given. The cuts in our budget should come from the $30 billion we spend in the Far East to defend ourselves in the case of an unlikely conflict, and the $130 billion we spend on NATO to guard against a greatly diminished Soviet threat, not in the Middle East where our involvement would have long ago cost us much more in dollars and lives if Israel had not been there.

MURRY K. WEBER

Canoga Park