Why the U.S. Supports Israel - Foreign Policy In Focus
By Stephen Zunes
In the United States and around the world, many are questioning why,
despite some mild rebukes, Washington has maintained its large-scale
military, financial, and diplomatic support for the Israeli occupation
in the face of unprecedented violations of international law and human
rights standards by Israeli occupation forces. Why is there such strong
bipartisan support for Israel's right-wing prime minister Ariel
Sharon's policies in the occupied Palestinian territories?
The close relationship between the U.S. and Israel has been one of the
most salient features in U.S. foreign policy for nearly three and a
half decades. The well over $3 billion in military and economic aid
sent annually to Israel by Washington is rarely questioned in Congress,
even by liberals who normally challenge U.S. aid to governments that
engage in widespread violations of human rights--or by conservatives
who usually oppose foreign aid in general. Virtually all Western
countries share the United States' strong support for Israel's
legitimate right to exist in peace and security, yet these same nations
have refused to provide arms and aid while the occupation of lands
seized in the 1967 war continues. None come close to offering the level
of diplomatic support provided by Washington--with the United States
often standing alone with Israel at the United Nations and other
international forums when objections are raised over ongoing Israeli
violations of international law and related concerns.
Although U.S. backing of successive Israeli governments, like most
foreign policy decisions, is often rationalized on moral grounds, there
is little evidence that moral imperatives play more of a determining
role in guiding U.S. policy in the Middle East than in any other part
of the world. Most Americans do share a moral commitment to Israel's
survival as a Jewish state, but this would not account for the level of
financial, military, and diplomatic support provided. American aid to
Israel goes well beyond protecting Israel's security needs within its
internationally recognized borders. U.S. assistance includes support
for policies in militarily occupied territories that often violate well
established legal and ethical standards of international behavior.
Were Israel's security interests paramount in the eyes of American
policymakers, U.S. aid to Israel would have been highest in the early
years of the existence of the Jewish state, when its democratic
institutions were strongest and its strategic situation most
vulnerable, and would have declined as its military power grew
dramatically and its repression against Palestinians in the occupied
territories increased. Instead, the trend has been in just the opposite
direction: major U.S. military and economic aid did not begin until
after the 1967 war. Indeed, 99% of U.S. military assistance to Israel
since its establishment came only after Israel proved itself to be far
stronger than any combination of Arab armies and after Israeli
occupation forces became the rulers of a large Palestinian population.
Similarly, U.S. aid to Israel is higher now than twenty-five years ago.
This was at a time when Egypt's massive and well-equipped armed forces
threatened war; today, Israel has a longstanding peace treaty with
Egypt and a large demilitarized and internationally monitored buffer
zone keeping its army at a distance. At that time, Syria's military was
expanding rapidly with advanced Soviet weaponry; today, Syria has made
clear its willingness to live in peace with Israel in return for the
occupied Golan Heights--and Syria's military capabilities have been
declining, weakened by the collapse of its Soviet patron.
Also in the mid-1970s, Jordan still claimed the West Bank and stationed
large numbers of troops along its lengthy border and the demarcation
line with Israel; today, Jordan has signed a peace treaty and has
established fully normalized relations. At that time, Iraq was
embarking upon its vast program of militarization. Iraq's armed forces
have since been devastated as a result of the Gulf War and subsequent
international sanctions and monitoring. This raises serious questions
as to why U.S. aid has either remained steady or actually increased
each year since.
In the hypothetical event that all U.S. aid to Israel were immediately
cut off, it would be many years before Israel would be under
significantly greater military threat than it is today. Israel has both
a major domestic arms industry and an existing military force far more
capable and powerful than any conceivable combination of opposing
forces. There would be no question of Israel's survival being at risk
militarily in the foreseeable future. When Israel was less dominant
militarily, there was no such consensus for U.S. backing of Israel.
Though the recent escalation of terrorist attacks inside Israel has
raised widespread concerns about the safety of the Israeli public, the
vast majority of U.S. military aid has no correlation to
counterterrorism efforts.
In short, the growing U.S. support for the Israeli government, like
U.S. support for allies elsewhere in the world, is not motivated
primarily by objective security needs or a strong moral commitment to
the country. Rather, as elsewhere, U.S. foreign policy is motivated
primarily to advance its own perceived strategic interests.
Strategic Reasons for Continuing U.S. Support
There is a broad bipartisan consensus among policymakers that Israel
has advanced U.S. interest in the Middle East and beyond.
Israel has successfully prevented victories by radical nationalist
movements in Lebanon and Jordan, as well as in Palestine.
Israel has kept Syria, for many years an ally of the Soviet Union, in
check.
Israel's air force is predominant throughout the region.
Israel's frequent wars have provided battlefield testing for American
arms, often against Soviet weapons.
It has served as a conduit for U.S. arms to regimes and movements too
unpopular in the United States for openly granting direct military
assistance, such as apartheid South Africa, the Islamic Republic in
Iran, the military junta in Guatemala, and the Nicaraguan Contras.
Israeli military advisers have assisted the Contras, the Salvadoran
junta, and foreign occupation forces in Namibia and Western Sahara.
Israel's intelligence service has assisted the U.S. in intelligence
gathering and covert operations.
Israel has missiles capable of reaching as far as the former Soviet
Union, it possesses a nuclear arsenal of hundreds of weapons, and it
has cooperated with the U.S. military-industrial complex with research
and development for new jet fighters and anti-missile defense systems.
U.S. Aid Increases as Israel Grows Stronger
The pattern of U.S. aid to Israel is revealing. Immediately following
Israel's spectacular victory in the 1967 war, when it demonstrated its
military superiority in the region, U.S. aid shot up by 450%. Part of
this increase, according to the New York Times, was apparently related
to Israel's willingness to provide the U.S. with examples of new Soviet
weapons captured during the war. Following the 1970-71 civil war in
Jordan, when Israel's potential to curb revolutionary movements outside
its borders became apparent, U.S. aid increased another sevenfold.
After attacking Arab armies in the 1973 war were successfully countered
by the largest U.S. airlift in history, with Israel demonstrating its
power to defeat surprisingly strong Soviet-supplied forces, military
aid increased by another 800%. These increases paralleled the British
decision to withdraw its forces from "east of the Suez," which also led
to the massive arms sales and logistical cooperation with the Shah's
Iran, a key component of the Nixon Doctrine.
Aid quadrupled again in 1979 soon after the fall of the Shah, the
election of the right-wing Likud government, and the ratification of
the Camp David Treaty, which included provisions for increased military
assistance that made it more of a tripartite military pact than a
traditional peace agreement. (It is noteworthy that the additional aid
provided to Israel in the treaty continued despite the Begin
government's refusal to abide by provisions relating to Palestinian
autonomy.) Aid increased yet again soon after the 1982 Israeli invasion
of Lebanon. In 1983 and 1984, when the United States and Israel signed
memoranda of understanding on strategic cooperation and military
planning and conducted their first joint naval and air military
exercises, Israel was rewarded by an additional $1.5 billion in
economic aid. It also received another half million dollars for the
development of a new jet fighter.
During and immediately after the Gulf War, U.S. aid increased an
additional $650 million. When Israel dramatically increased its
repression in the occupied territories--including incursions into
autonomous Palestinian territories provided in treaties guaranteed by
the U.S. government--U.S. aid increased still further and shot up again
following the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
The correlation is clear: the stronger and more willing to cooperate
with U.S. interests that Israel becomes, the stronger the support.
Ensuring Israel's Military Superiority
Therefore, the continued high levels of U.S. aid to Israel comes not
out of concern for Israel's survival, but as a result of the U.S.
desire for Israel to continue its political dominance of the
Palestinians and its military dominance of the region. Indeed, leaders
of both American political parties have called not for the U.S. to help
maintain a military balance between Israel and its neighbors, but for
insuring Israeli military superiority.
Since the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11,
there has again been some internal debate regarding how far the United
States should back Israeli policies, now under the control of right
wing political leader Ariel Sharon. Some of the more pragmatic
conservatives from the senior Bush administration, such as Secretary of
State Colin Powell, have cautioned that unconditional backing of
Sharon's government during a period of unprecedented repression in the
occupied territories would make it more difficult to get the full
cooperation of Arab governments in prosecuting the campaign against
terrorist cells affiliated with the al Qaeda network. Some of the more
right-wing elements, such as Paul Wolfowitz of the Defense Department,
have been arguing that Sharon was an indispensable ally in the war
against terrorism and that the Palestinian resistance was essentially
part of an international terrorist conspiracy against democratic
societies.
Other Contributing Factors
Support for Israel's ongoing occupation and repression is not unlike
U.S. support for Indonesia's 24-year occupation of and repression in
East Timor or Morocco's ongoing occupation of and repression in Western
Sahara. If seen to be in the strategic interests of the United States,
Washington is quite willing to support the most flagrant violation of
international law and human rights by its allies and block the United
Nations or any other party from challenging it. No ethnic lobby or
ideological affinity is necessary to motivate policymakers to do
otherwise. As long as the amoral imperatives of realpolitik remain
unchallenged, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere will
not reflect the American public's longstanding belief that U.S.
international relations should be guided by humanitarian principles and
ethics.
Some of the worst cases of U.S. support for repression have not
remained unchallenged, leading to reversals in U.S. policy on Vietnam,
Central America, South Africa, and East Timor. In these cases, grass
roots movements supportive of peace and justice grew to a point where
liberal members of Congress, in the media and elsewhere, joined in the
call to stop U.S. complicity in the repression. In other cases, such as
U.S. support for Morocco's invasion and occupation of Western Sahara,
too few Americans are even aware of the situation to mount a serious
challenge, so it remains off the radar screen of lawmakers and pundits.
The case of Israel and Palestine is different, however. There are
significant sectors of the population that question U.S. policy, yet
there is a widespread consensus among elite sectors of government and
the media in support of U.S. backing of the Israeli occupation. Indeed,
many of the same liberal Democrats in Congress who supported
progressive movements on other foreign policy issues agree with
President George W. Bush--or, in some cases, are even further to the
right--on the issue of Israel and Palestine. Therefore, while the
perceived strategic imperative is at the root of U.S. support for
Israel, there are additional factors that have made this issue more
difficult for peace and human rights activists than most others. These
include the following:
The sentimental attachment many liberals--particularly among the post
war generation in leadership positions in government and the media-
have for Israel. Many Americans identify with Israel's internal
democracy, progressive social institutions (such as the kibbutzim),
relatively high level of social equality, and its important role as a
sanctuary for an oppressed minority group that spent centuries in
diaspora. Through a mixture of guilt regarding Western anti-Semitism,
personal friendships with Jewish Americans who identify strongly with
Israel, and fear of inadvertently encouraging anti-Semitism by
criticizing Israel, there is enormous reluctance to acknowledge the
seriousness of Israeli violations of human rights and international
law.
The Christian Right, with tens of millions of followers and a major
base of support for the Republican Party, has thrown its immense media
and political clout in support for Ariel Sharon and other right-wing
Israeli leaders. Based in part on a messianic theology that sees the
ingathering of Jews to the Holy Land as a precursor for the second
coming of Christ, the battle between Israelis and Palestinians is, in
their eyes, simply a continuation of the battle between the Israelites
and the Philistines, with God in the role of a cosmic real estate agent
who has deemed that the land belongs to Israel alone--secular notions
regarding international law and the right of self-determination
notwithstanding.
Mainstream and conservative Jewish organizations have mobilized
considerable lobbying resources, financial contributions from the
Jewish community, and citizen pressure on the news media and other
forums of public discourse in support of the Israeli government.
Although the role of the pro-Israel lobby is often greatly exaggerated-
with some even claiming it is the primary factor influencing U.S.
policy--its role has been important in certain tight congressional
races and in helping to create a climate of intimidation among those
who seek to moderate U.S. policy, including growing numbers of
progressive Jews.
The arms industry, which contributes five times more money to
congressional campaigns and lobbying efforts than AIPAC and other pro
Israel groups, has considerable stake in supporting massive arms
shipments to Israel and other Middle Eastern allies of the United
States. It is far easier, for example, for a member of Congress to
challenge a $60 million arms deal to Indonesia, for example, than the
more than $2 billion of arms to Israel, particularly when so many
congressional districts include factories that produce such military
hardware.
The widespread racism toward Arabs and Muslims so prevalent in American
society, often perpetuated in the media. This is compounded by the
identification many Americans have with Zionism in the Middle East as a
reflection of our own historic experience as pioneers in North America,
building a nation based upon noble, idealistic values while
simultaneously suppressing and expelling the indigenous population.
The failure of progressive movements in the United States to challenge
U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine in an effective manner. For
many years, most mainstream peace and human rights groups avoided the
issue, not wanting to alienate many of their Jewish and other liberal
constituents supportive of the Israeli government and fearing criticism
of Israeli policies might inadvertently encourage anti-Semitism. As a
result, without any countervailing pressure, liberal members of
Congress had little incentive not to cave in to pressure from
supporters of the Israeli government. Meanwhile, many groups on the far
left and others took a stridently anti-Israel position that did not
just challenge Israeli policies but also questioned Israel's very right
to exist, severely damaging their credibility. In some cases,
particularly among the more conservative individuals and groups
critical of Israel, a latent anti-Semitism would come to the fore in
wildly exaggerated claims of Jewish economic and political power and
other statements, further alienating potential critics of U.S. policy.
Conclusion
While U.S. support for Israeli occupation policies, like U.S. support
for its allies elsewhere, is primarily based upon the country's support
for perceived U.S. security interests, there are other factors
complicating efforts by peace and human rights groups to change U.S.
policy. Despite these obstacles, the need to challenge U.S. support of
the Israeli occupation is more important than ever. Not only has it led
to enormous suffering among the Palestinians and other Arabs,
ultimately it hurts the long-term interests of both Israel and the
United States, as increasingly militant and extremist elements arise
out of the Arab and Islamic world in reaction.
Ultimately, there is no contradiction between support for Israel and
support for Palestine, for Israeli security and Palestinian rights are
not mutually exclusive but mutually dependent on each other. U.S.
support of the Israeli government has repeatedly sabotaged the efforts
of peace activists in Israel to change Israeli policy, which the late
Israeli General and Knesset member Matti Peled referred to as pushing
Israel "toward a posture of calloused intransigence." Perhaps the best
kind of support the United States can give Israel is that of "tough
love"--unconditional support for Israel's right to live in peace and
security within its internationally recognized border, but an equally
clear determination to end the occupation. This is the challenge for
those who take seriously such basic values as freedom, democracy, and
the rule of law.