U.S. Strategic/Economic Interests Driving Support for Israel
by Wendy Hazard
No sooner had the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a
resolution in July critical of Israel, than the U.S. House of
Representatives voted 361-47 to renounce that resolution. The General
Assembly drafted its resolution after the International Court of Justice
ruled Israel's construction of the barrier across the West Bank was a
violation of international law because it illegally cut into Palestinian
territory. The Court's advisory recommended that Israel dismantle the
barrier, and compensate Palestinian people injured by its incursions. The
General Assembly supported that ruling, and called on Israel to take down
the wall, post-haste. Most U.S. allies, including all 25 members of the
European Union voted in favor of the General Assembly resolution. But the
U.S. government stood by Israel and implicitly supported Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon's decision to press on with the construction.
The U.N. General Assembly has no power to force countries to act on its
resolutions. Enforcement requires Security Council approval, and in the
Security Council, this resolution, like so many in the past, faces the
certain threat of a U.S. veto.
Since 1972, the U.S. has cast 32 vetoes in the Security Council to protect
Israel from international censure when it has violated international laws.
These violations have included Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon
and the Golan Heights, the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied
West Bank, and the systematic abuse of human rights in all its occupied
territories. In virtually every case, the United States has muted any
criticism of Israel's actions and blunted the efforts of the world community
to condemn them.
Not only has U.S. support for Israel been evident in the United Nations and
other international forums, but it is also manifest in over $3 billion in
military and economic assistance that the U.S. provides Israel every year.
Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor of Foreign Policy in Focus, points out
that this aid is higher today than it was 25 years ago, when Israel was
surrounded by powerful Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi military forces that
continually threatened war on Israel. Not only has Egypt signed a peace
treaty with Israel, but the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein has been
destroyed, and Syria has made clear its willingness to live in peace with
Israel in exchange for the return of the Golan Heights. Today, Israel's
military, with a stockpile of sophisticated conventional weapons and as many
as 200 nuclear bombs, is the dominant power in the Middle East and one of
the most powerful in the world. This is in large measure thanks to the very
special favor that Israel has come to expect from the U.S. (See Stephen
Zunes, "Why the U.S. Supports Israel" www.fpif.org/papers )
As the crises in the Middle East proliferate, however, and anti-U.S.
sentiment in the Arab and Islamic countries intensifies, many people here
and around the world are asking why our government so consistently aligns
itself with Israel's actions. One reason we often hear is the U.S.
government's bi-partisan commitment to Israel's legitimate right to exist in
peace and with security, as a Jewish state. But this moral commitment to
Israel's security is shared by other nations that have nonetheless refused
to provide arms and aid while the occupation of Palestinian lands seized in
the 1967 war continues. Why is it then that the U.S continues its massive
military, economic and diplomatic support to Israel when that support goes
well beyond protecting Israel's security needs within its own
internationally recognized territory? Why have both Republican and
Democratic administrations over the past many years refused to condemn
Israel's violations of human rights, including the arrest and detention
without trial of suspected terrorists, routine torture, and the demolition
of the houses of the families of suspects, while at the same time, they have
been willing to condemn the human rights violations of other key allies in
the region and elsewhere? Why have American administrations of both
political parties failed to denounce Israel's most provocative acts when
this failure has repeatedly left American officials and ordinary citizens
vulnerable to attacks by angry people seeking revenge? And why have U.S.
administrations refused to acknowledge the dangerous and destabilizing
impact of Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East for so many years?
We are also told that US relations with Israel are dictated by U.S. domestic
politics, and that Jewish voters, Israel's lobbies, and, more recently,
fundamentalist Protestant churches and neo-cons have hijacked American
policy in the Middle East, stymied debate, and convinced candidates in both
major parties that they have to vie with each other over who is more
aggressively pro-Israel. While there is no doubt some merit in the
importance of domestic politics, politics and political alignments are
fickle, and U.S. policy in support of Israel is anything but. That policy
has, at least since 1967, been one of this nation's most consistent and
time-honored. So, what gives? What are the real interests involved?
Like all nations, the foreign policy of the U.S. is motivated primarily by
its own strategic interests. Phyllis Bennis, a Fellow in the Washington D.C.
Institute for Policy Studies argues that Israel has understood that reality,
and, in exchange for continued U.S. backing, has acted as a surrogate for
U.S. policy in the Middle East, helping to protect the U.S.'s vital
interests there. Stephen Zunes concurs, pointing out that Israel has been a
critical asset for the U.S. on many fronts. It has prevented victories by
radical nationalist movements in Jordan, Iran, Lebanon and Palestine that
have threatened U.S. interests in the region. During the cold war, it kept
Syria, a Soviet ally in check. Its nuclear arsenal was (and is) capable of
reaching as far as the former Soviet Union, and its intelligence service has
provided vital assistance to the U.S.'s own intelligence agencies in
planning covert operations in the Middle East. Israel's scientific community
has worked hand in hand with the U.S. military-industrial complex over the
years, developing new jet fighters and anti-missile defense systems, and
U.S. arms manufacturers have benefited handsomely, not only from their
massive sales to Israel, but from the Israeli government's willingness to
serve as a conduit for U.S. arms to regimes that were too unpopular to aid
directly. These have included apartheid South Africa, the military
dictatorship in Guatemala, and the Nicaraguan Contras, to name a few.
Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. some members of Congress and
even some members of the Bush Administration have worried that the U.S.'s
unconditional support of Sharon's rightwing government and its brutal
repression of Palestinians has increased the appeal of radical Islamists,
and made it difficult for the U.S. to get help from Arab governments in its
war on terror. Some have argued for a cutback in the massive U.S. aid to
Israel in consideration of Israel's great military and economic potential.
Others have insisted that any U.S. aid to Israel be contingent on regional
negotiations based on the exchange of peace for land as outlined in UN
resolution 242, and on adherence to human rights standards and international
law. But those voices have not prevailed. U.S. support of Israel continues
unabated. With the Israeli government's unqualified support for the U.S. war
in Iraq, it is unlikely that the Bush Administration will challenge Israel's
domestic or international policies any time soon.
Wendy Hazard teaches history at the University of Maine at Augusta.
Back to Peace Talk Index, Autumn, 2004