There are few countries strong enough to make a cameo in the national debates, let alone acquire their own platform. Of these countries, we are at war with one, potentially with another, and are economically engaged with the last. One that does not fill any of these roles is Israel. Israel is not a strategic or moral interest. It does not economically benefit the United States, it does not make it popular in the Middle East (the very group it has been trying to earn the hearts of), and it does not make the Americans esteemed members of the UN. So what is this infatuation that the United States’ government has with the state? Perhaps it is that Israel’s colonization of Palestine conjures up a 300-year old nostalgia or that they really believe in Israel’s rhetoric of unprovoked animosity from their neighbors. While these might factor into the grand equation, I believe there is another more imposing reason.
Like many things, if you want to find the rationale behind a policy, you must follow the money trail and this one is an extensive trail of domestic politics slithering its way into foreign policy. America’s love affair with Israel can be summed up in one word, AIPAC – the American Israeli Political Action Committee – one of the most influential government donors in the nation. The University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer and Harvard’s Steven Walt said it best in their book The Israel Lobby, “AIPAC’s success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. … AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad pro-Israel PACs. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand, can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents.” AIPAC’s financial resources have allowed it to establish a strong presence over Washington.
Perhaps in reciprocation for the large sums AIPAC donates to politicians, Israel has been the largest annual recipient of economic and military assistance since 1976. This aid accounts for over a fifth of America’s foreign aid budget. In addition, they are the only recipient not required to account for its spending. This is especially confounding when we remember that Israel is not impoverished, nor is it struggling. This amount of generosity and leniency might be understandable if they were a vital strategic interest, however they are not. If anything, their alliance with America is a detriment to any initiative that seeks to win over the Middle Eastern public. Winning the war on terror is difficult when your strongest regional ally accounts for much of the regional animosity felt towards the United States.
Since 1982, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, “The US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.” These vetoes have been used to block the efforts of other Middle Eastern states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda, to help Israel get away with its illegal settlements, and to prevent the Palestinians from achieving member state status in the UN. In fact, in response to the latter, the US pulled its funding to UNESCO, leaving the organization scrambling to account for the fifth of the budget that it lost. Responding to the former, it could be argued that Israel has no right to dictate nuclear policy when they refuse to not only admit that they have weapons, but sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is no wonder that many are left confused when the United States prioritizes Israel above most other matters.
As for the American public’s attitude on Israel; the matter inspires an array of opinions, ranging from complete polarization to ambiguous sympathy. According to a Gallup poll conducted in May, 62% (when averaged) of Americans sympathize with Israel. However, being an American, I do not feel biased when I say that a large number of my countrymen do not understand the issue well enough render a legitimate opinion. This is especially convincing considering 75% of Americans can’t even locate Israel on a map. In a country where political awareness is not everybody’s priority, unchecked statements and maneuvering have allowed AIPAC’s policies to proliferate. There is nothing wrong with supporting a nation, especially a democratic one like Israel, however that support must not be bought and go unchecked.
I should mention that my criticism lies not with the Israeli population as a whole, rather with their government. A recent New York Times article differentiates between the government and the population, “The Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly support a two-state solution.” Unfortunately, their current government has another plan. Their government has earned the reputation of being irrational, hypocritical, and rash. It has provoked conflicts (like the second Intifada) and wrongly included itself in the coming election. There are ways to get your goals accomplished and acting out in this manner is not one of them. Obama, Carter, and many Israelis have been on the record as saying that Netanyahu is a pain to deal with but for now he is our pain and we must mitigate his ambitions as best we can. The United States must take a more neutral line when dealing with Israel and remember that our interests are not always mutual.
About the Author
