Why is Israel so important to the US?

Great Debates
21

The latter. The “substance” of your statement - or rather your statements - are well known. Essentially your post boiled down to the old familiar “the Jews control the media” and “the Jews control the government”. You left out the banks, of course, but essentially it’s the classic jive, along with the obligatory whine about false accusations of anti-Semitism.

This stuff has been debated at length here and elsewhere, most recently during the White Nationalist influx. I am not intending to debate this again here - only to bring your remarks into sharper focus.

Well before my time as well. But this was widely reported durting the recent Trent Lott episode. I can’t find it anywhere now except in editorials on one side or another. Believe or disbelieve. In any event, he was a vehement opponent of Israel.

Are you eager to know my opinion or trying to get in a silly dig? Either way, the answer to your question is I don’t think so.

22

Genuinely interested. I’m not entirely convinced we’d agree on very much (about domestic influences on US policy towards Israel) but a closed mind isn’t a good thing and I’m always interested in intelligent perspectives. Never mind, next time, maybe.

23

To an extent, it is a matter of “in for a dime, in for a dollar”.

There was doubt and speculation at first as to whether the Truman Administration would even recognize the State of Israel.
Once it did, the U.S. found it had to keep taking action to back up its support for a nation which is in an extremely precarious position, even as that support became more and more expensive and, at time, more and more difficult to defend.

The U.S. has a striking history of turning on nations which are not part of the trilateral alliance if it suits our purpose. Noreiga in Panama was an ally of the U.S. not too long before we invaded and ousted him. Saddam Hussein received military and other support from the U.S. throughout his war with Iran.

It is true that Israel is the only genuine democracy in its region, and the failure of America to support such a democracy would be odious to a great many Americans. At the same time, though, commitment to fostering and upholding democracy abroad has never been a significant factor in guiding American foreign policy; we have supported police states throughout the world when it has served our purpose.

But in the case of Israel, the U.S. government quickly found it would be very, very difficult to let our commitment to the nation, and its democratic system, falter. This is largely because of the strong pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

For centuries talk of Jewish conspiracies have been the easy recourse for crazy bigots of every stripe, and this makes talking about Jewish people, or a Jewish influence, in generalities immediately suspect. The fact remains, though, that Jews in America represent a very important economic and voting bloc. To a lesser extent Fundamentalist Christians who feel a commitment to Israel (even though some of the ones I’ve dealt with seemed at the same time to be anti-Semitic on a personal level) also wield such an influence, particularly in certain specific Congressional districts.

This helps account for why the U.S. has, far and away, used its veto power more often than any other permanent member of the U.N. Security Council; time and again the U.S. has blocked resolutions critical of Israel which were supported by nations which otherwise largely share a common world view with the U.S.–Canada, Great Britain, etc. There have also been many, many instances in which a resolution has passed the U.N. General Assembly with just two dissenting votes–the U.S. and Israel.

This also accounts for why the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in recent decades, far and away, has been Israel. The second largest year after year has been Egypt; the U.S. directs aid there as a way of maintaining stability and enhancing Israel’s stability.

Another factor is that the Islamic nations in the region have, on the whole, been so inept in pressing their case during the years. In 1967 a coalition of them launched a sneak attack on Israel, and were defeated in a humiliating rout in just six days. Ever since Israel has occupied and exploited terrritory it seized in that war in defiance of U.N. declarations, and the U.S., committed to suporting Israel generally, has been put in the position of steeling its position and siding with Israel more and more exclusively.

As for the role of the mass media, one can argue endlessly, and fruitlessly, about its supposed liberal or conservative bias. The fact remains, though, that as Vincent Bugliosi once observed, its motto often seems to be “I came, I saw, I concurred”; major media outlets in this country have a way of finding and adopting a simplistic consensus, identifying good guys and bad guys, and sticking to those identifications in favor of more complex or nuanced positions.

None of this requires a Jewish “conspiracy”, only a recognition that a strident and consistent lobby, particularly one with money to spend, can have a disproportionate influence on U.S. policy. The same can be said for Cuban expatriates, retirees, and numerous farm blocs, to name just a few parties with a powerful and consistent influence on U.S. policy which can result in one-sided and single-minded policies.

24

To an extent, it is a matter of “in for a dime, in for a dollar”.

There was doubt and speculation at first as to whether the Truman Administration would even recognize the State of Israel.
Once it did, the U.S. found it had to keep taking action to back up its support for a nation which is in an extremely precarious position, even as that support became more and more expensive and, at time, more and more difficult to defend.

The U.S. has a striking history of turning on nations which are not part of the trilateral alliance if it suits our purpose. Noreiga in Panama was an ally of the U.S. not too long before we invaded and ousted him. Saddam Hussein received military and other support from the U.S. throughout his war with Iran.

It is true that Israel is the only genuine democracy in its region, and the failure of America to support such a democracy would be odious to a great many Americans. At the same time, though, commitment to fostering and upholding democracy abroad has never been a significant factor in guiding American foreign policy; we have supported police states throughout the world when it has served our purpose.

But in the case of Israel, the U.S. government quickly found it would be very, very difficult to let our commitment to the nation, and its democratic system, falter. This is largely because of the strong pro-Israel lobby in the United States.

For centuries talk of Jewish conspiracies have been the easy recourse for crazy bigots of every stripe, and this makes talking about Jewish people, or a Jewish influence, in generalities immediately suspect. The fact remains, though, that Jews in America represent a very important economic and voting bloc. To a lesser extent Fundamentalist Christians who feel a commitment to Israel (even though some of the ones I’ve dealt with seemed at the same time to be anti-Semitic on a personal level) also wield such an influence, particularly in certain specific Congressional districts.

This helps account for why the U.S. has, far and away, used its veto power more often than any other permanent member of the U.N. Security Council; time and again the U.S. has blocked resolutions critical of Israel which were supported by nations which otherwise largely share a common world view with the U.S.–Canada, Great Britain, etc. There have also been many, many instances in which a resolution has passed the U.N. General Assembly with just two dissenting votes–the U.S. and Israel.

This also accounts for why the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in recent decades, far and away, has been Israel. The second largest year after year has been Egypt; the U.S. directs aid there as a way of maintaining stability and enhancing Israel’s stability.

Another factor is that the Islamic nations in the region have, on the whole, been so inept in pressing their case during the years. In 1967 a coalition of them launched a sneak attack on Israel, and were defeated in a humiliating rout in just six days. Ever since Israel has occupied and exploited terrritory it seized in that war in defiance of U.N. declarations, and the U.S., committed to suporting Israel generally, has been put in the position of steeling its position and siding with Israel more and more exclusively.

As for the role of the mass media, one can argue endlessly, and fruitlessly, about its supposed liberal or conservative bias. The fact remains, though, that as Vincent Bugliosi once observed, its motto often seems to be “I came, I saw, I concurred”; major media outlets in this country have a way of finding and adopting a simplistic consensus, identifying good guys and bad guys, and sticking to those identifications in favor of more complex or nuanced positions.

None of this requires a Jewish “conspiracy”, only a recognition that a strident and consistent lobby, particularly one with money to spend, can have a disproportionate influence on U.S. policy. The same can be said for Cuban expatriates, retirees, and numerous farm blocs, to name just a few parties with a powerful and consistent influence on U.S. policy which can result in one-sided and single-minded policies.

25

I refer the honourable gentleman to that unfortunate King David Hotel incident. It has been argued that this invented the very concept of modern terrorist bombing.

26

What percentage of wealth in america is controlled by the jews?

Unrelated quote:
If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?
- Mark Twain

27

Perhaps. But it is sort of irrelevant to the OP, which cmkeller was answering. A pre-foundation of the state of Israel event has very little to do with modern American support of Israel.

This is probably not the best place to hash out “who are the bigger terrorists” argument for the umpteenth time - Plenty of threads in GD for that.

  • Tamerlane
28

I think it’s pretty straight-forward myself. Astorian mentioned the reason above - Britain created Israel and the US continues to support it because they think that the Jews should have a homeland after getting such a bad rap over the centuries.

This is the main reason. Other than that, it is also the only democracy in the area. If Iraq goes democratic, we may start to see a shift in the US’s attitude towards Israel. Once Israel becomes just one democracy amongst many in the region then they will lose their right to preferential treatment (whilst still retaining the right to exist of course, like any other country).

29

Off to Great Debates

bibliophage
moderator GQ

30

Actually, hilariously, the British supported Zionism long before WWII. It had little to do with persecution, but more because the British were so anti-Semitic they believed the stories about the vast Jewish conspiracy and ruling elite. By bribing them with a homeland, the Brits hoped that the Jews would then take down Germany from the inside.

31

I’m sorry, but I don’t have much substantive to add to the many intelligent posts on the subject that have already been made.

FWIW, I think you would have to be naive to think that Jewish political influence is not at all a factor in US foreign policy towards the Middle East (as with Arab influence in Europe). Still, it is one factor among many, and is in any event not nearly as strong as you presented it.

OTOH, the Jewish control of the media thing is not a factor at all. At most a tiny, tiny one.

32

cite?

33

<< I refer the honourable gentleman to that unfortunate King David Hotel incident. It has been argued that this invented the very concept of modern terrorist bombing. >>

Oh, please. The King David Hotel was the British military HQ. You might as well say that George Washington invented the concept of modern terrorist bombing, by having his men hide behind trees and take pot-shots at the British soldiers.

Guerilla warfare and surprise attacks have been around for a long time. Yassir Arafat is the one who raised it to the level of suicide bombings, and of deliberately choosing targets that had no connection whatsover to the enemy’s military force.

34

Slipster - thanks for the balanced and intelligent explanation. This is a question that has always baffled me too. jsb5048’s explanation of ‘location, location, location’ also sounds reasonable.

35

Why do we need to come up with special reasons to explain the alliance of the U.S. and Israel? What is it about Israel that should make it America’s enemy absent some overriding excuse?

America makes alliances with democracies, and with dictatorships that are strategically important. Israel is a Democracy AND strategically important.

But even if Israel was some dirt-poor democracy out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere, it would be a good friend of the United States.

A better question would be, why is FRANCE an ally? France has authoritarian and colonial impulses. France has always been a very unreliable ally, and has at times been overtly hostile. Yet, the U.S. liberated France in WWII. The U.S. got into trouble in Vietnam in part because of blind loyalty to France’s colonial ambitions in Vietnam. France has sold weapons to America’s enemies, France has worked to split the U.S. from other allies. Remember that nuclear reactor of Iraq’s that Israel bombed, and took heat throughout the world for doing? FRANCE provided that reactor to Saddam, against the wishes of the United States. And aren’t we all glad today that Israel took that reactor out?

And yet, the U.S. considers France an ally. Why? Because France is a democracy. Because France, when it comes right down to it, is a member of a community of civilized nations, warts and all.

Israel is also a member of that community, warts and all. And Israel has been a staunch friend of the United States for decades. It is a stable, western-oriented, pluralistic democracy that believes in the same rights and freedoms as other free nations. And that’s really the only reason you need.

Again I ask, what makes you assume that Israel SHOULDN’T be an ally?

36

I agree with the sentiment of your post, but just as a minor nitpick, Arafat didn’t really invent the tactic of suicide bombing. The ideology of suicide attacks as theologically justified was first advanced during the Iran-Iraq War, then morphed into the suicide bombing in Lebanon ( the attack on the Marine barracks in 1983 may have been among the very first instances ). The tactic first appeared in Israel in 1994 ( I think ), with attacks by Hamas and shortly afterwards Islamic Jihad. Arafat’s involvement, whatever it was/is, and the creating Al-Aqsa Brigade, came later.

Of course it is quoite accurate to say that Arafat was responsible for the targetting of civilians long before then. But suicide tactics are a relatively recent innovation.

  • Tamerlane
37

(my bold)

Democracy does not require western-orientation. Western-orientation is not a prerequisite of democracy.

Once a country is democratic, they can assume any orientation they want. The whole point of democracy is that it allows the free expression of the will of the people. Democracy isn’t about kow-towing to “western” (ie American) demands.

Israel may be pro-western but that isn’t a reason for supporting it. When all the arab countries become democratic they will probably still hold anti-Israel sentiments for generations to come. It isn’t all going to disappear overnight just because they are now democracies.

So any new arab democracies won’t necessarily be “pro-western”. But they will at least be democracies and that’s all that matters. Democracies allow countries to take less hardline stances than dictatorships do. Democracy allows the possibility of negotiation and even when leaders can’t agree, there will be a new set of leaders along in a few years - maybe they can figure out a solution.

But if you just have the same leader in power all the time then there’s no flexibility over the years. You just get the same old thing all the time. Dictatorship hinders natural political evolution.

Democracies don’t have to be pro-western, they just have to be democracies.

38

I think the State Department would rather support a pro-western non-democracy than an anti-western democracy. If Osama was democratically elected by some consitituency, would that guarantee the US would support him?

It may be ethically or morally questionable, but a state’s level of democracy is secondary to its pro-western sentiments, especially when the stakes are so high.

39

I plead guilty to oversimplification. Of course, that’s nothing new on threads about the Middle East.

The forces leading up to supporting a Zionist homeland in Britain were many and varied depending on the person or group. Some Britons didn’t support it, of course. Others supported for humanitarian reasons looking at the conditions in Czarist Russia and Eastern Europe in general. Still others supported it for Biblical reasons (Jews returning to homeland, end times, etc.). Some supported it because they felt that if they were to grant the Jews a homeland in Palestine it would fix the one weak point in their connection of the African and Indian Empires, since the Jews would have to be an ally of Britain out of gratitude and need for protection against hostile Arabs. And others supported the Zionist dream because of the reason I stated - a belief in the vast Jewish conspiracy that could turn the tide of war.

For more info, read A Peace to End All Peace by Fromkin. It goes into the reasons behind and the events leading up to the dissolution of the Ottoman empire and the establishment of the current Middle East and how they effect things today.

40

I understand that Democracy != Western Orientation. That’s why I qualified democracy with ‘western oriented’, to distinguish it from the democracies that aren’t.

But it’s not just about mutual interests. The U.S. was a staunch friend of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, and never recognized the Soviet Union’s annexation of those countries. It protested on their behalf in the U.N. and elsewhere throughout the Cold War.

The U.S. has been a solid ally of Australia as well. Why doesn’t anyone question that?

Whenever I hear people ask why the U.S. supports Israel, it always makes me wonder why the question doesn’t get asked of the dozens of other countries the U.S. is allied with. What makes Israel different? My guess? It has many Jews in it.

Why do so many people scream about what Israel is doing in the occupied territories, but we hear nary a peep about what France is doing in Africa, or Russia to the Chechens, or about the mass expulsions of Palestinians from Arab countries, or about East Timor, or Tibet, or even Saddam’s oppression of his own people?

For all of Israel’s mistakes, I believe that it has truly acted as well as any other democracy could act in the same circumstances. Israel is surrounded by people who want to destroy it, and suffers horrible bombings and other terror acts almost daily. Would the U.S act with as much restraint as Israel has, if, say, Canadians were killing Americans daily?

And for that matter, does anyone remember how Canada responded to its little bout of terror during the FLQ crisis? Canada is considered one of the most peaceful, genteel countries in the world. And yet, we went through a terrorist crisis that resulting in six deaths in seven years. Nothing even remotely close to the amount of violence Israel has suffered.

And how did our peaceful country respond? In October of 1970, Pierre Trudeau invoked the war measures act. Civil liberties were suspended, and 465 Canadians were arrested without due process. There were hundreds of soldiers in the streets. When asked about the extreme measures being taken, Trudeau said, “There’s a lot of bleeding hearts around who just don’t like to see people with helmets and guns. All I can say is go on and bleed.”

I don’t remember anyone questioning alliances with Canada during the October crisis.