America Didn’t Always Support Israel

The Forgotten History You Need To Know

Despite being aware of anti-imperialist politics since I was a child with Lebanese heritage, I have not made many videos or podcasts on the Israel-Palestine conflict. This is because I generally choose only to cover topics involving underexamined problems where the truth is not already obvious and requires a more nuanced analysis. I do not believe this is the case for the highly one-sided Israel-Palestine conflict, especially when it comes to what Israel is doing in Gaza. What is happening in Gaza is quite straightforward and has already been acknowledged by many: the government of Israel has used the October 7th Hamas attacks as an opportunity to go through with a final solution in Gaza to accelerate the broader colonial project that the state of Israel has embarked on since its very foundation: the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. While some liberal-Zionists who claim to oppose Israel’s actions are still reluctant to use the G-word, a wide range of credible sources have come out with strongly supported claims that Israel’s actions in Gaza legally qualify as genocide under international law.^[1]

However, I don’t think it takes a political analyst to understand that the Israeli government is committing genocide against the Palestinian people. By this point, any person with a moral spine, some basic intuition, and intellectual honesty can see that we have been witnessing some of the worst war crimes against humanity of the 21st century, and arguably even since the holocaust itself. Israel has done so little to conceal the brutality of its actions in Gaza to the point where acknowledgement of these profound injustices is no longer a right-left issue. For the first time in my lifetime, many on the American right have been increasingly turning against Israel, or at the very least are becoming critical of US support for Israel. So then, with so many voices on the left and right finally acknowledging the truth about Israel, what more needs to be said? However, as I gradually observed more and more new leftists passionately taking up this issue in the past couple of years, I realized that there are some serious flaws in how many on the Western left think about the US-Israel relationship, which get regurgitated by some of the most prominent leftist “thought leaders.” Here, I will present an essay that I wrote on this matter, which will be turned into a video documentary on the 1Dime YouTube channel.

What The Activist Left Often Gets Wrong

Ever since October 7th, I have noticed some particular tendencies in the common talking points of many self-professed “radicals” when it comes to Israel, which I believe undermine the pro-Palestinian cause. I am not merely referring to the (to be expected) rise of blatantly antisemitic sentiments, which is a phenomenon I see mainly on the far-right, not so much on the left. Rather, the problem I want to address in this essay involves certain misguided narratives echoed in the ways in which many radical leftists tend to talk about Israel’s relationship to the United States, which I believe often undermines the ability of anti-imperialists to articulate a stronger pro-Palestine position. Due to a lot of mystification, miseducation, and myopia, some crucial points regarding the US-Israeli relationship have been missing from contemporary anti-imperialist discourses (or are underdiscussed) because they have been largely erased from historical memory. For instance, throughout this essay, I show in detail how:

1. The United States did not always support Israel, and the USA was far from the most important force in establishing its creation.

2. The reasons for US support for Israel are multifaceted and historically contingent.

3. US support for Israel has changed throughout history, and it can change again.

There is a particular kind of thinking that has permeated among self-professed radicals in Western leftist circles when it comes to critiquing Israel, one that is not only historically inaccurate but also highly counter-productive. It involves deeply nihilistic narratives and self-defeating rhetoric that, rather than advancing the Palestinian cause, actually undermines it - by regurgitating a myopic view of history that induces a certain helplessness and goes nowhere.

One of the most pervasive misconceptions that embodies this thinking is the notion that Israel is merely a satellite proxy for US imperialism, and that the real reason for US support for Israel is simply the product of a shared settler-colonial lineage and a transhistorical commitment to white supremacy. It often goes something like this: “Of course America supports Israel - it’s a settler-colonial state founded on genocide, just like Israel. American imperialism and Zionism are inseparable.”

This is a line of thinking that has become increasingly popular among many newer leftists who don’t know geopolitical history very well (or have a highly selective reading of it). This kind of defeatist framing isn’t just misleading - it unwittingly reinforces pro-Israel propaganda narratives regarding the supposed “unbreakable bond” between the US and Israel. This is precisely the kind of mentality that encourages student activists to ruin pro-Palestine protests by burning the American flag or declaring slogans such as “America supports genocide because it’s founded on genocide.” This kind of infantile anti-Americanism, although often rooted in an understandable contempt towards American imperialism, reflects a profound misunderstanding of history that paradoxically mirrors the propaganda of the very pro-Zionist forces it seeks to combat. Pro-Palestine activists want to challenge pro-Zionist propaganda and forces like the Israel Lobby; however, short-sighted narratives like this do the exact opposite by overemphasizing the similarities & shared goals of Israel and the United States while underplaying the role of the lobby groups like AIPAC exerting a decisive influence on US foreign policy.

Instead, those who espouse the presupposition that settler-colonial ideology and shared imperialist interests in the Middle East are the real rationale behind the US’s unflinching support for Israel suppose that Pro-Israel lobby groups like AIPAC are not that significant of a factor in US foreign policy, arguing that the US government supports Israel because it’s already in its geopolitical interest to do so. This argument gained currency especially after Joe Biden’s famous statement from 1986: “If there were not an Israel, we would have to invent an Israel to protect our interests in the region.”^[2] While this hypothesis has a rational kernel of truth to it, particularly regarding US foreign policy since the 1980s and more so since the War on Terror, it omits the entire history of the USA’s initial reluctance to support Israel. One could just as easily say that the USA’s enablement of Israeli aggression has damaged US hegemony far more than it has benefited it. It has made the US far more enemies while alienating potential allies in the Middle East and Africa, as many American politicians, strategists, and higher-ups in the US State Department predicted would happen when the debate over the creation of Israel was taking place. The hypothesis of “mutual interests” and shared settler-colonial heritage does not account for the fact that the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc played a far more decisive role in facilitating the creation and militarization of Israel than the USA did, who was initially far more reluctant to support Israel. Even after US-Israeli ties eventually strengthened following the later fallout between Israel and the Soviet Union over the Suez Crisis and the 6-day war, the US support for Israel was far from unflinching.

Aside from the historical myopia of the anti-American narrative I am criticizing, which will be dealt with in more detail later in this essay, let’s consider the political implications of taking this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. If one takes the assumption that American foreign policy is naturally wedded to the Zionist project, then how exactly does one expect US foreign policy to change? Do you plan to overthrow the entire US government? Are you going to wait for America to collapse into a civil war? Good luck with that. The implication is that America must burn for Israel to fall, or that the American state is inherently, by design, wedded to the Zionist project.

The real history of US-Israeli relations tells a much more nuanced story that presents some inconvenient truths for those who like to believe the notion of an unbreakable settler-solidarity between America and Israel. Reminding us of this history not only allows for a more mature and accurate view of the world but also can provide pro-Palestine activists in the United States with the rhetorical ammunition to more effectively make the case for withdrawing military support for Israel and imposing sanctions on them as the US did on Apartheid South Africa. What solution to the question of Israel-Palestine (whether it be a one-state or two-state solution) is most fair and possible is a whole other can of worms that is beyond the scope of this essay; however, it is safe to assume that withdrawing military aid and imposing sanctions in the name of upholding international law would be the first step to at least ending Israel’s massacres of Palestinians and the illegal settlements in the West Bank.

In any case, the presumption that the USA’s ongoing support for Israel benefits American hegemony and is the inevitable result of shared solidarity between settler-colonial civilizations does not do much to help either the Palestinians or Western activists seeking to make a change to help them. At most, it gives fuel to radicals who want to portray themselves as more radical than thou and imply (or sometimes they explicitly state it) that the only way to stop Israeli oppression of Palestinians is by having Hamas “win” the war against Israel and for the United States to be balkanized. If we take a step back from the present and look back at how radically US-Israeli relations changed throughout history, it becomes possible to see how they could change again.

The Mistake of Equating Israeli and American Settler Colonialism

The comparison between America’s founding and Israel’s actions, while superficially appealing, collapses under historical scrutiny. While America did indeed commit genocide against indigenous peoples during Manifest Destiny in the mid-1800s, this occurred in an era where “might makes right” was still the prevailing international norm. When the British colonized North America, European countries were constantly warring and conquering each other’s territories - parts of Italy belonged to France, parts of Eastern Europe belonged to Italy, and Germany itself was created through Prussia’s conquest of neighboring regions. There was no international law against war crimes. The very concept of “war crimes” would have been seen as tautological - war itself was understood as consisting of criminal acts.

Israel’s actions, however, occur in a fundamentally different international context. Israel was established after World War II, after the Nuremberg Trials, after the Geneva Conventions had defined concepts of war crimes, and after international law had fundamentally changed the rules of engagement. Israel’s creation came after the establishment of these new international norms, which is why its actions - bombing hospitals, forced displacement, settlement expansion - are considered war crimes under international law. Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians occurs at a time when such actions are objectively understood as crimes against humanity.

Therefore, to equate British settler colonialism in North America with what Israel is doing reflects a profound ignorance of world-historical context and inadvertently helps exonerate Israel’s crimes, as it gives ammunition for Zionists to say, “well you did it too, so you can’t criticize us” any time American politicians condemn Israel (or simply critique it for going too far). Portraying Israel as a mirror of America’s settler colonial project is misleading and not very helpful for winning over Americans to the Palestinian cause. If anything, exaggerating the similarities between the United States and Israel might make some Americans more sympathetic to Israel, not less.

I am generally critical when I see narratives in leftist circles that inadvertently reinforce the narratives they seek to criticize. It is one of the very ways in which radicals often become what I call self-contained opposition- opposition that is not controlled but neutralized by its own self-defeating impotence. Pro-Zionist Americans will say that America has an obligation to give unconditional support to Israel because of an “unbreakable bond” that has supposedly tied the fate of both civilizations. Meanwhile, ultra-leftists who regurgitate the kind of talking points I am criticizing will say something like, “AmeriKKKa will always support Israel because it benefits from Israel’s imperialism, and they are both settler-colonial civilizations.”

On the American right, many support Israel out of an ideological belief that America and Israel’s fate are tied together. Pro-Israel Neo-Conservative Warhawks believe that Israel and the USA have a shared interest in promoting democracy and freedom in the Middle East in opposition to Radical Islamism and authoritarianism. Hardline Evangelical Christians believe that the US must support Israel for theological reasons that involve shared “Judeo-Christian” values and downright Biblical apocalypticism. On the (anti) Western left, there are some (though not all) who paradoxically mirror these narratives by portraying Israel as merely a US proxy - a US Client State designed to uphold “Western” hegemony (often, they will use “Western” and “US” hegemony interchangeably without a clear idea of who is part of “the West”) against “the East” or “the Global South” (in which they often underemphasize the fact that most of Eastern Europe, Asia, and even many Arab states also support Israel and still do trade with them even after calling for “peace”).

It absolutely makes sense to place greater blame on America for Israel’s atrocities today, given that nearly ¾ of Israel’s arms come from America. However, it would be a gross oversimplification to attribute America’s complicity in Israeli atrocities to being a product of a transhistorical white supremacist, settler-colonial solidarity, and it would be factually inaccurate to say that this support has helped bolster US hegemony. In fact, many of the people who support this narrative tend to also be convinced that US hegemony is in decline.

So if it is doing no favors for bolstering US hegemony, then why is America still giving so much unflinching support to Israel? Why does the US government, under both Democrat and Republican administrations, unconditionally stand with Israel, despite the recent rulings of International Law against Israeli war crimes and all of the changing public sentiment (which has been shifting strongly against Israel to the point where American media corporations have to censor it)? The important question to ask is not just why the USA allows for Israel’s right to exist, as 163 out of the 193 UN members recognize Israel as a state. The bigger question is why the USA still enables Israeli atrocities despite pushback from the international community and Uncle Sam’s diminished reputation around the world. Given America’s own (largely failed) imperialist endeavors in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), it may seem evident that Israeli imperialism is merely an extension of American Imperialism.

The reasons for America’s support for Israel are multifaceted and have evolved a lot over time. What matters is why people with political power support Israel. Some support Israel for ideological reasons, some for strategic reasons, some for pragmatic opportunism, and some for reasons that have more to do with a powerful lobbying industry (see Mearsheimer’s work on The Israel Lobby) that exerts such a disproportionate influence on US politics, that Israeli politicians have even bragged about it.^[3] At this point, it is a known fact that the colossal influence of the Israel Lobby has made anyone who runs for public office terrified of criticizing Israel because they know they might be potentially blackballed from career opportunities, and organizations like AIPAC will support the Candidate who supports Israel the most. However, things weren’t always this way, and America’s relationship with Israel is not as straightforward as it may seem. To see how we got here, we must go back to the beginning.

How Britain and the Soviet Union Created Israel

Perhaps the most glaring omission in contemporary leftist discourse is the crucial role the Soviet Union played in Israel’s creation. Contrary to popular belief, Israel was not created by America - it was primarily established through British and Soviet support. While the US did recognize Israel, this support was initially quite reluctant compared to the USSR and Britain’s much more committed backing.

You heard that right. The Soviet Union, the very state supported by many neo-Marxist-Leninist types who today often defend both Stalin and Hamas, was among Israel’s most critical early backers, playing a far more decisive role in facilitating the creation of Israel than the USA initially did. It was Stalin’s USSR that played a decisive role in arming Zionist militias during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It was the Soviet Union, alongside Britain, that did more than the United States to facilitate Israel’s founding.

While Soviet support proved crucial for Israel’s early survival, the true architect of Israel’s creation was the British Empire, though perhaps not in the way its leaders had intended. The story begins with the 1917 Balfour Declaration - a moment of profound historical consequence where Britain, then administering Palestine after the Ottoman Empire’s collapse, expressed support for “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” This seemingly straightforward diplomatic statement would set in motion a complex chain of events that would reshape the Middle East. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, British administrators attempted what would prove to be an impossible balancing act: managing the competing interests of both Arab populations and Jewish populations while maintaining imperial control. The mounting tensions and escalating conflicts between these communities, combined with Britain’s losses in WW2, eventually led Britain to withdraw from the region. This British retreat culminated in the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181, recommending Palestine’s partition into Jewish and Arab states.

When David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel’s establishment on May 14, 1948, as the British Mandate came to its end, it marked both the birth of a new nation and the death knell of Britain’s imperial ambitions in the region. Britain’s attempt to maintain control through careful diplomatic maneuvering had instead catalyzed forces that would help dismantle its empire. However, while Britain’s Balfour Declaration planted the seeds that would pave the way for Israel’s eventual creation, it was ultimately the Soviet Union that played by far the most significant role in making the creation of Israel come to fruition.

Why the Soviet Union Created Israel: The Forgotten History

In addition to offering vital diplomatic support by being among the first nations to recognize Israel’s statehood, the USSR (”indirectly” through its satellite state, Czechoslovakia) provided a large amount of the weapons to Jewish forces during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. These arms would play a crucial role in allowing Israel to colonize the region and helped make major attempts at ethnic cleansing like the Nakba possible.

Stalin had strategically reversed the Soviet Union’s earlier opposition to Zionism during World War II, partly to mobilize worldwide Jewish support for the Soviet war effort against Nazi Germany. The Soviets saw an opportunity to simultaneously weaken the British Empire’s grip on the region while potentially gaining a foothold in the Middle East through what they hoped would become a socialist ally, particularly given the socialist leanings of Israel’s founding leadership and the kibbutz system.

Soviet leadership viewed Israel as a potential socialist bulwark against British and American influence in the Middle East. While the Soviets were skeptical of Israeli socialism because it was based on Jewish nationalism rather than internationalism, the Soviet leadership under Stalin nevertheless supported Israel for geopolitical reasons that had more to do with expanding their influence in the region.

However, while Israel was supposed to remain aligned, their leadership was quite pragmatic, and Israel would move closer to the West by the mid-1950s. The fact that Israel was originally created with Soviet backing rather than American support demonstrates how the current alignment of forces emerged through specific historical circumstances rather than any inevitable ideological affinity. The “socialist” dimension of Israel’s history is one that is rarely discussed by Americans today, largely because those on the pro-Israel American right like to forget about that while those on the left prefer that socialism not be tainted by Israel’s ethnonationalist legacy.

Israel’s “Socialist” Origins

Israel’s early character was profoundly shaped by socialist ideology, though in ways that would later prove deeply contradictory. The Labor Zionist movement, which dominated pre-state Israel and its first three decades of independence, envisioned creating not just a Jewish homeland but a socialist utopia. This vision manifested most visibly in the kibbutz movement - collective agricultural communities that embodied socialist principles of communal ownership and egalitarian distribution. The state’s founders, particularly through the dominant Mapai party (later the Israeli Labor Party), implemented a highly regulated economy with extensive state control and comprehensive social welfare programs.

However, this wasn’t orthodox Marxism - it was a unique hybrid that prioritized Jewish nationalism over international class struggle. This socialist character helped Israel gain surprising support from many Western leftists, particularly in the aftermath of World War II, who saw in Israel the possibility of building a new, more egalitarian society from the ground up. Yet Israel’s socialist leanings proved to be a double-edged sword in securing American support. During the intensifying Cold War, Israel’s heavily regulated economy, socialist institutions, and early ties to the Soviet Union raised serious concerns in Washington. This ideological suspicion, combined with fears of alienating oil-rich Arab states, contributed significantly to America’s initial reluctance to fully embrace the new Jewish state.

Why the USA was Initially Reluctant to Support Israel

The United States’ initial relationship with Israel was marked by significant hesitation and skepticism, a reality often overlooked in contemporary discussions. While Harry Truman ultimately recognized Israel in 1948, this decision came amid considerable internal debate and opposition within his own administration. Many officials in the State Department opposed recognizing Israel, fearing it would harm relations with Arab states and jeopardize American access to oil. Some top diplomatic and military experts warned against creating a Jewish state on land primarily inhabited by Palestinians, citing potential long-term harm to US and Western interests in the region. The State Department and Pentagon were particularly concerned about alienating Arab nations and jeopardizing US access to Middle Eastern oil. These concerns were significant enough that the US imposed an arms embargo during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, making it a lot harder for Israel to accomplish its colonial objectives. As the founding father of Israel, David Ben-Gurion said it himself in his own war diaries: “America did not raise a finger to save us, and moreover imposed an arms embargo, and had we been destroyed, they would not have resurrected us.“^[4]

American Jewish Opposition to Israel

Let’s also not forget the significant Jewish opposition to Israel’s creation during this period, which was far more substantial than is commonly acknowledged today. Many Reform Jewish leaders and assimilated Jewish elites in America actively opposed Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish state. The American Council for Judaism, formed by Reform Jewish thinkers, emerged as a prominent anti-Zionist organization with thousands of members. These Jewish opponents viewed Judaism primarily as a religion rather than a nationality and considered America their true homeland.

Rabbi Elmer Berger, executive director of the American Council for Judaism, articulated this position eloquently: “Judaism is a religion of universal values. To equate it with a nationalistic political movement is to destroy its universal character.”^[5] The American Jewish Committee (AJC), drawing from late 19th-century Reform Jewish tradition, initially maintained a non-Zionist position, fearing that Zionism might call into question Jewish loyalty to the United States and lead to accusations of dual allegiance.

Many prominent Jewish intellectuals and business leaders shared these concerns. Lessing J. Rosenwald, former chairman of Sears, Roebuck and Company and president of the American Council for Judaism, warned that Zionism “threatens to undermine the position of Jews in countries where they have achieved citizenship and equality.”^[6] Even Albert Einstein, though supportive of a Jewish cultural homeland, opposed the creation of a Jewish state, warning in 1938 about the “narrow nationalism” within Zionist ranks.

This Jewish opposition to Zionism reflected deeper debates within American Jewish communities about assimilation, identity, and the relationship between religious and national belonging - debates that would continue to shape Jewish-American perspectives on Israel for generations to come. The fact that such substantial Jewish opposition existed undermines the narrative that American Jewish support for Israel was ever monolithic or inevitable.

The Eisenhower administration maintained this skeptical stance, as evidenced during the 1956 Suez Crisis when Eisenhower strongly opposed Israel’s invasion of Egypt alongside Britain and France. The president went so far as to pressure Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, even threatening economic sanctions. This willingness to publicly criticize and pressure Israel stands in stark contrast to later periods of US-Israel relations.

A significant shift began to occur in the mid-1950s as many Arab states, particularly Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, began aligning with the Soviet Union and receiving arms from the Eastern bloc. This realignment gradually pushed the US to view Israel as a potential counterweight to Soviet influence in the region. Israeli leaders, particularly David Ben-Gurion, recognized that long-term support from the US, rather than the USSR, was essential for Israel’s survival due to America’s superior financial and military capabilities.

From Skepticism to Uneasy Alliance: What Changed

The evolution of US-Israel relations has been marked by significant tensions and reversals, a tumultuous history that is conveniently ignored by those who reinforce the myth of an “unbreakable alliance” between Israel and the USA. The early history we have discussed so far already makes this clear. Still, the USA’s willingness to go against Israeli ambitions continued long after that, and US foreign policy didn’t become beholden to Israeli interests overnight. President John F. Kennedy posed a major barrier to Israel by opposing their nuclear weapons program, which it was developing with Soviet help. This created serious friction with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, who was furious at Kennedy’s attempts to halt the project. The tension reached such levels that some Israeli officials even feared potential US military intervention over the Dimona nuclear facility.

The relationship grew even more strained in 1967 when Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, a US Navy intelligence ship, killing 34 American servicemen. The Johnson administration, influenced by growing pro-Israel lobby pressure, chose to cover up the incident. This period coincided with a pivotal shift during the Six-Day War, when Israel seized territory from Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. This aggressive expansion marked Israel’s decisive break from the Soviet Union, which denounced it as a “colonialist entity,” while simultaneously creating new opportunities and complications in its relationship with America.

Nixon’s presidency further illustrates the complexity of these relations. Despite facing substantial pro-Israel lobby influence, Nixon maintained a skeptical stance toward Israeli expansionism and was particularly wary of the growing power of pro-Israel interest groups. He pursued peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt against Israel’s wishes, demonstrating that even during periods of seemingly close alliance, significant tensions could exist between American and Israeli interests.

The 1970s and 1980s brought new dimensions to this complex relationship. President Carter attempted to broker peace with Palestinians, though his efforts were ultimately limited. Reagan’s presidency particularly highlighted these contradictions. Despite his conservative reputation and general support for Israel, Reagan actually intervened to stop Israel’s invasion of Lebanon when he deemed it too extreme. Israel had used PLO rocket attacks from Lebanon as justification for invasion, but their real aims included seizing water resources under the guise of defensive action. Reagan suspended strategic cooperation with Israel after it annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 and publicly condemned its bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor the same year.

The Post-Cold War Era: New Tensions and Changing Dynamics

The presidency of George H.W. Bush marked a crucial turning point in US-Israel relations. Bush actively advocated for a two-state solution at a time when Israel was moving increasingly to the right, creating significant tensions between the two allies. In September 1991, he publicly asked Congress to delay Israel’s $10 billion loan guarantees and famously called himself “one lonely little guy” up against “a thousand lobbyists.” In this rare, televised clash with the Israel lobby, he won the delay.

Secretary of State James Baker articulated the principle clearly: the US wouldn’t furnish tax dollars to pursue a course that ran counter to American policy. Bush and his advisor Brent Scowcroft believed the United States had a “disproportionate responsibility” to use its power “in pursuit of a common good” - a worldview that guided their approach from the Madrid Peace Conference to the loan-guarantee fight.

There was a political price. Among Jewish voters, the GOP share fell from 32% in 1988 to 15% in 1992. While voters were also reacting to recession and other domestic issues, exit polls explicitly cited Bush’s “contentious relationship with the Shamir government” as a factor. According to sources including an oil executive who worked with the Bush family, George W. Bush later attributed his father’s electoral defeat partly to this confrontation with Israel and its supporters.

Learning from his father’s experience, George W. Bush took a different approach. He made a pre-campaign trip to Israel in 1998, told AIPAC in 2000 that Washington shouldn’t force Israel to “conform to its own plans and timetables,” and once in office, acknowledged “new realities on the ground” regarding settlements in his April 2004 letter to Sharon. While he generally supported Israel during the Second Intifada, his administration occasionally took harder lines - notably cutting off access to certain US defense systems after Israel’s unauthorized sale of military technology to China in 2005. But overall, he avoided the kind of public confrontation that had hurt his father politically.

The Israel Lobby

The contemporary relationship between the US and Israel has been profoundly shaped by the growing influence of corporate interests and institutional forces, particularly through organizations like AIPAC. In the 2024 election cycle alone, AIPAC and its affiliated super PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP), spent over $100 million to defeat progressive candidates critical of Israel. This massive spending, enabled by the Citizens United decision that effectively legalized corporate bribery in American politics, demonstrates how modern mechanisms of influence have become increasingly sophisticated and harder to challenge.

AIPAC’s strategy has proven remarkably adaptable. While traditionally aligned with Republicans, it now funds both parties to maintain influence, with 75% of its recent contributions going to Democrats. This reflects a strategic pivot to counter growing progressive dissent within the Democratic Party. The organization maintains close ties with Israeli officials, often acting as an unofficial conduit for Israeli policy preferences in Washington, while operating officially as part of America’s policy planning network, being highly influential in both the domains of foreign and domestic policy.

This institutional entrenchment extends beyond direct lobbying. Pro-Israel think tanks like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) shape policy narratives by staffing government advisory roles and publishing research that frames Israel as a strategic asset. The lobby also employs sophisticated tactics to marginalize critics, including pressuring universities to adopt definitions of anti-Semitism that can conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with bigotry.

Evangelical Zionism: The Religious Right’s Role

A crucial but often underestimated component of the pro-Israel coalition in America is the Evangelical Christian Zionist movement. These Christian Zionists, numbering in the tens of millions, believe that modern Israel fulfills biblical promises and end-times prophecy, often invoking Genesis 12:3 - “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse.” For them, supporting Israel isn’t just a strategic policy but a religious duty. This powerful voting bloc, which became increasingly organized and influential from the 1980s onward, created a new constituency for unconditional support that had nothing to do with Jewish voters or traditional foreign policy considerations.

Prominent political figures exemplify this religious conviction. Senator Ted Cruz has declared that “Christians have a religious responsibility to stand with Israel” and has consistently opposed any criticism of Israeli policies, stating “Those who hate Israel hate America.”^[7] Former Texas Governor Rick Perry led multiple delegations to Israel and proclaimed that supporting Israel is “both a strategic imperative and a moral duty grounded in the Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded.”^[8]

Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), which claims over 10 million members, has been particularly influential. At CUFI’s annual Washington summit, thousands of evangelical activists lobby Congress for pro-Israel legislation. Hagee has stated unequivocally: “Israel was created by a sovereign act of God... Anyone who makes war against Israel makes war against God himself.”^[9]

This evangelical support translates into significant political capital. Mike Pence, during his vice presidency, exemplified this alliance when he declared himself a “Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order” while consistently advocating for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and opposing any peace plan that would divide the city. The late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson mobilized millions of evangelical voters around pro-Israel causes, making support for Israel a litmus test for conservative politicians.

The theological foundation of Christian Zionism - premillennial dispensationalism - holds that the Jewish return to Israel and control over the entire biblical land is necessary for Christ’s second coming. This creates an ironclad political alliance where any territorial compromise or peace agreement that involves land concessions is viewed not merely as bad policy but as opposition to God’s plan.

Why Does the USA Support Israel Today?

To sum up, understanding why America’s relationship with Israel transformed from skepticism to seemingly unconditional support requires examining four interconnected factors that emerged and intensified over decades.

First, changing US geopolitical interests played a crucial role. Initially, during the Cold War, Israel became useful as a counterweight against Soviet influence in the Middle East. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, this rationale shifted dramatically with the War on Terror. Israel rebranded itself as America’s frontline ally against radical Islam, positioning itself as an indispensable partner in the fight against terrorism. This narrative gained particular traction after 9/11, even though Israel’s aggressive policies arguably created more terrorists than they eliminated.

Second, the rise of the Evangelical Right as a political force fundamentally altered the domestic political landscape, as detailed above.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the Israel Lobby, particularly groups like AIPAC, developed into one of the most effective political influence operations in American history. As detailed above, their ability to mobilize resources, coordinate messaging, and punish dissent has created a political environment where challenging Israeli policies carries enormous risk for elected officials. The lobby’s power isn’t just financial - it’s the capacity to shape narratives, control information flows, and define the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

Career Risks and The Jewish Vote

Fear of losing the Jewish vote and being smeared as “antisemitic” has created a chilling effect on political criticism. Quite simply, Israel-Palestine is not an issue that many politicians want to die on, as they just don’t want to make extra enemies and lose more votes. But this fear operates in more complex ways than simple electoral math might suggest.

Another major reason why American politicians support Israel more today than they did before is due to changing voter demographics and the time that has passed since Israel was created. When Israel was first established, it was a new set of settlements, not from persecuted religious minorities risking their lives to travel to a new land, but rather from people who already had a degree of wealth and privilege, flying to a state from which they took land from Palestinians. This idea was undoubtedly controversial. Thus, supporting Israel was controversial for politicians.

Today, things have changed significantly. Aside from AIPAC and the fear of going against the Zionist lobby, many politicians are afraid to be too harsh in their critiques of Israel due to the potential alienation of Jewish voters. Why would this alienate Jewish voters? We have established that Zionism is not the same as Judaism. Not all Jews are Zionists, nor have they been. However, unlike in the early days of Israel’s history, many Jewish people now have family in Israel. Therefore, even those Jewish voters who may be skeptical and critical of the Israeli government, believing they go overboard in settlements and the persecution of Palestinians, might still be hesitant or outright against opposing Israel as a whole or being anti-Zionist because of their emotional connection to family there, which distorts their rational assessment of the situation.

This is not just about Jewish voters; many politicians and powerful individuals also have family in Israel. This is the paradox of liberal Zionism. Even among liberal Zionists, there may be critiques of the Israeli government, but they will never go against Israel due to their ultimate loyalty to it and the fact that many of their family members live there. If you have ever spoken to a Jewish person sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, yet ultimately unable to agree with you due to their emotional ties to family in Israel, this is a common experience. It is emblematic of the larger issue at play regarding politicians and their reluctance to speak out against Israel.

These four factors - geopolitical rationalization, religious extremism, lobby power, and demographic entrenchment - have created a self-reinforcing system where support for Israel appears politically mandatory regardless of its actions. Each element strengthens the others: the lobby amplifies religious voices, religious voters provide electoral cover for geopolitical decisions, family ties make criticism personally painful, and geopolitical arguments justify continued military aid that enriches defense contractors who fund the lobby. Breaking this cycle requires understanding how these pieces fit together and how they might be challenged.

US-Israel Relations Today

The evolution of US-Israel relations reveals something profound about how power operates in contemporary liberal democracies. What began as a cautious, even skeptical relationship has transformed into what appears to be unconditional support - yet this transformation tells a story not of inevitable alliance but of specific historical processes and institutional entrenchment. The relationship has become increasingly dysfunctional, even from an imperialist perspective, serving neither the interests of the American people nor the interests of American hegemony.

The paradox of modern US-Israel relations illustrates how institutional power can become self-perpetuating through complex mechanisms of influence. Former officials who privately opposed Israeli actions found themselves unable to translate that opposition into policy, constrained by a web of political calculations, lobby influence, and institutional inertia. As Nixon recognized decades ago, uncritical support for Israel regardless of its actions isn’t necessarily good for American interests. Yet the machinery of support - from campaign finance to weapons contracts to think tank narratives - continues almost on autopilot, divorced from strategic rationality. The fact that 67% of Democrats support conditioning aid to Israel, yet Congress continues to provide unconditional support, highlights how institutional mechanisms can effectively neutralize popular will while preserving the appearance of democratic representation.

The system has become so entrenched that even when American leaders privately oppose Israeli actions - as evidenced by Biden’s reported criticism of Netanyahu - they appear unable or unwilling to meaningfully challenge them. Biden’s frustration occasionally surfaces, as when he was caught on a hot mic calling Netanyahu a “son of a bitch” after learning that Israeli airstrikes had killed aid workers in Gaza.^[10] Yet despite such private anger, Biden has continued to provide Israel with military aid and diplomatic cover. While America could theoretically pressure Israel through methods like withholding military aid or implementing South Africa-style sanctions, such actions would require confronting deeply embedded institutional structures and accepting significant political risks that few leaders are prepared to take.

America’s Relationship with Israel Changed Before, and It Can Change Again

The point of this essay is to challenge both right-wing narratives about an “unbreakable bond” and left-wing assumptions about inevitable imperialist alliance. History shows us that America’s relationship with Israel has changed before, and it can change again, for it must. Not only is it in the USA’s interest to avoid imperial overreach and to make too many enemies by enabling Israel’s atrocities and destabilization of the Middle East, but it is also the correct thing to do. Does the USA want to be on the right side of history, like how it sided with the international community in sanctioning South Africa to end its Apartheid, or will it be remembered as an evil empire that picked the wrong side? America’s wars in the Middle East have discredited its previous reputation as an empire of liberty, but it has all the resources in the world to become one. It can use its resources to help rebuild Palestine and withhold its military support for Israel while also sanctioning them until they agree to a two-state solution that gives up land to the Palestinians and ends new settlements.

A trap that leftists and activist types in general often fall into is that they often convince themselves that nothing can change unless everything changes. By this, I mean that they often believe that every bad policy is something intrinsic to “the system” and nothing can change unless enough people stop believing in that system. This is often the case in how many leftists approach the topic of Israel when they assume that Israel is merely an arm of US imperialism and that Israeli imperialism can’t fall without the fall of American Hegemony (when the irony is that more than anything, Israel has arguably undermined US hegemony). Rather than trying to force-feed Americans a helpless (and false) historical narrative that requires them to effectively hate their own nation in order to be “part of the cause,” it is far more effective to oppose Israel on its own terms that already exist in American liberal society.

A major function of ideology is legitimacy - to make things legitimate. More generally, it is easier to advocate radical causes by using the dominant ideologies of the system we live in against itself rather than trying to convince everyone to become awakened to a completely new set of ideological positions. It is more effective (and a lot easier than one would think) to make a case against Israel using the criteria of existing international law without necessarily being unequivocally anti-American.

The Irony of The International World Order

One of the bitter ironies of this conflict is that Israel has increasingly found itself at odds with the very liberal order that facilitated its birth. Israel’s creation was ultimately made possible by the Holocaust and the radical changes in international humanitarian law after World War II. The tragedy is that Israel has now come to increasingly go against the very international liberal order that made its creation possible. Israel has repeatedly violated international law and found itself at odds with the international community. The Israeli government under Netanyahu has come to embrace the Trumpian vision of rejecting liberal internationalism, becoming effectively a rogue state in the process, that has continued to do whatever it wants regardless of pushback from the international community.

Only by grounding criticism in accurate historical analysis and recognition of actual political dynamics can advocates for Palestinian rights develop strategies that might actually succeed in challenging the status quo. Burning American flags or declaring the entire country irredeemably genocidal does nothing to advance the Palestinian cause. Such performative radicalism may provide emotional satisfaction to some activists, but it ultimately reinforces isolation rather than building the kind of broad-based movement needed for real change.

The path forward requires moving beyond both performative radicalism and accepting institutional constraints as unchangeable facts. What might seem most “extreme” is not always what is most radical, and what is most radical isn’t always what is most liberatory. What matters is not just the truth of the matter, but the effects that those truths can have. We need to develop strategies that could actually succeed in changing US policy and advancing Palestinian liberation. If one’s stance on Palestine implies that the end of US hegemony or the end of America altogether is necessary in order for Palestinians to be free, then such a stance does not advance Palestinian liberation whatsoever. To truly disrupt the ideological hegemony of Zionist imperialism, we must counter the myth that Israel is and always must be America’s “greatest ally.” As history shows us, America’s relationship with Israel has changed before, and it can change again. If the US government placed an arms embargo on Israel in 1947-1948, then it could do it again, if there is enough outside public pressure to do so, and if there are enough people within the government with the incentives to respond accordingly.

Bibliography/Works Cited

^[1] Amnesty International, “Gaza: Evidence of Genocide against Palestinians,” December 2024; Doctors Without Borders, “MSF: Israeli forces committed genocide in Gaza,” November 2024; United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, “Report on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967,” A/78/346 (2023); B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, “This Is Apartheid: A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea,” January 2021; International Association of Genocide Scholars, “Open letter to President Joe Biden on Israel’s actions in Gaza,” October 2023; Republic of South Africa, “Application instituting proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice concerning violations of the Genocide Convention,” December 2023.

^[2] Joe Biden, speech to the U.S. Senate, June 5 1986.

^[3] “Netanyahu: US easily manipulated,” Al Jazeera, July 18 2010; Lee Fang, “Ilhan Omar’s criticism of Israel lobby has united a surprising group of supporters,” The Intercept, February 11 2019; Ali Abunimah, “Video: Netanyahu brags he deceived US to destroy Oslo accords,” The Electronic Intifada, 2010; DD Geopolitics (@DD_Geopolitics), post on X (formerly Twitter), October 21 2023.

^[4] Tom Segev, 1949: The First Israelis, trans. Arlen N. Weinstein (New York: Owl Books, Henry Holt and Company, 1998), 36–37.

^[5] Elmer Berger, The Jewish Dilemma (New York: Devin-Adair Company, 1945), 89.

^[6] Lessing J. Rosenwald, “The Fallacy of Zionism,” American Council for Judaism pamphlet, 1944.

^[7] Ted Cruz, speech at Christians United for Israel Summit, July 2014.

^[8] Rick Perry, Fed Up! (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2010), 97.

^[9] John Hagee, address to Christians United for Israel Washington Summit, July 2019.

^[10] Jacob Magid, “Biden overheard calling Netanyahu a ‘son of a bitch’ after aid workers killed,” The Times of Israel, April 8 2024; Alexander Ward, “Biden privately calls Netanyahu names after Gaza airstrikes kill aid workers,” Politico, April 8 2024.