In 2010 the Mount Carmel Fire just south of Haifa killed 44 Israelis and burned the iconic north end of the Carmel range. It was a national disaster. Israel up to that point had little experience with suppressing large wildfires because they had not experienced anything on that scale.

Prior to the Mount Carmel wildfire, I had left a position managing the National Forest lands in the U.S. with perhaps the most complex challenges and wildfire history in the nation -- the Sierra Front, a 100-mile stretch of land in two states along the east ridge of Lake Tahoe. In response to the Mount Carmel Wildfire, we developed a plan with the blessing and involvement of the Director of Wildfire for the U.S. Forest Service as well a second director who was close to the chief of the agency. I was to relocate on a detail to Israel for an extended period of time and help them develop a more effective wildland firefighting program; e.g., buy the right aircraft and wildland engines for their situation, develop basic wildland firefighter training, design a prevention program, adopt an emergency command structure for wildfire incidents, etc. The U.S. Forest Service and KKL/JNF agreed to the plan and the funding. Some contact had been made with the U.S. Forest Service International Programs, Middle East Desk, which had other priorities in neighboring countries, but at the staff level they voiced no opposition.

Then it all turned around. The director of International Programs in conjunction with USAID strongly and vociferously objected to this arrangement. They complained through the department to the chief of the agency. This was a violation of their protocols and priorities. The agreement was cancelled. Because I had been involved in designing the plan, I received a letter of reprimand from the chief.

The International Programs division together with USAID was finally pressured to respond and sent a three-person team to Israel for one week -- did a report as their protocol calls for and gave it to the Israelis. That was it.

Lessons for the current situation.

1. It isn’t just USAID that needs oversight and program review -- I assume that the Forest Service is not alone in having an international programs component that could benefit from oversight of their operations and priorities.
2. Delivery of assistance needs to be responsive in the aftermath of international disasters if the U.S. wants to truly help at a time of need.
3. How to effectively deliver assistance needs to be re-examined. One-week program reviews -- a day to travel, three days to review, and a day to write a report -- has limited utility in truly providing AID to other nations.

We are hearing about all kinds of egregious spending that is working against national interest such as funding a cement plant in Gaza that was used to build Hamas tunnels as well as funding the political opposition to the current ruling coalition in Israel. Based on my limited experience, it is not just USAID spending that needs a review. The process and prioritization that occurs in other agencies would also benefit from a fresh look.

Gary Schiff is a resource consultant and guide connecting Israel and the U.S.

Image: יחידה אווירית משטרת ישראל