Why is the United States so supportive of Israel?

Steven, editor-in-chief and expert on Middle East issues, was published in the May 2002 issue of American Foreign Policy Focus magazine. Zunis's article "Why does the United States support Israel". This paper deeply analyzes the reasons why the United States has provided political and military support to Israel for a long time. The full text is translated as follows:

In the United States and the international community, many people are asking: in the face of Israel's unprecedented illegal occupation, why does Washington continue to provide large-scale military, economic and diplomatic support to Israel under the pressure of public opinion? Why do the two parties in the United States strongly support Israeli right-wing Prime Minister Sharon's policy in the occupied Palestinian territory?

One of the most important features of American foreign policy in the past 35 years is to maintain close relations with Israel. Congress rarely questions Washington's annual military and economic assistance to Israel of more than $3 billion. Even liberals who have always opposed American aid to governments that violate human rights norms and conservatives who oppose American aid to other countries have not questioned it. In fact, all western countries, like the United States, support Israel's legitimate right to a peaceful and safe living environment. However, when Israel continues to occupy the territories occupied in the 1967 war, these countries have stopped providing weapons and assistance to Israel. No country's diplomatic support for Israel is close to the level provided by the United States. In the United Nations and other international forums, when people oppose Israel's violation of international law and other norms, the United States always stands on one side.

Although, like most foreign policies, it seems morally reasonable for the United States to support successive Israeli governments, moral factors have not played a decisive role in the Middle East policy of the United States. Most Americans do morally admit that Israel exists as a Jewish state, but this cannot be used as a reason for such large-scale economic, military and diplomatic support. American aid to Israel has far exceeded the need to protect Israel's security within internationally recognized borders. American support includes supporting Israel's policy of violating existing laws and international moral standards in the military occupied areas.

If Israel's security interests are extremely important in the eyes of American policymakers, then the peak of American aid should be when the Jewish state has just been established, the democratic system is the strongest, and the strategic situation is the most fragile. With the rapid growth of its military strength and the increasing suppression of the Palestinian people in the occupied areas, American aid should gradually decrease. The reality is just the opposite: after the 1967 war, the United States began large-scale military and economic assistance. In fact, 99% of US military assistance was provided after Israel was far stronger than any Arab military alliance and the Israeli occupation army became the ruler of a large number of Palestinian people.

Similarly, the United States now provides more aid to Israel than it did 25 years ago. At that time, Egypt's large-scale well-equipped army threatened war, but now Israel and Egypt have signed a long-term peace agreement, and there are demilitarized zones and buffer zones between the two countries under international supervision. At that time, the Syrian army became stronger with advanced Soviet weapons. Now, Syria has made it clear that it is willing to live in peace with Israel on the condition of returning the Golan Heights-and its military strength has gradually declined due to the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

In the mid-1970s, Jordan still insisted on its sovereignty over the West Bank and deployed a large number of troops along the border and the ceasefire line with Israel. Now Jordan has signed a peace agreement and established normal relations with Israel. At that time, Iraq was carrying out large-scale military construction. Iraq's military strength was destroyed in the Gulf War and subsequent international sanctions and surveillance. All this raises a very serious question for us: Why has American aid not decreased, but increased year by year?

Imagine that if the United States immediately stopped its aid, Israel would not face a more urgent military threat than it does now. Israel not only has a large number of military industries, but also its military strength is far stronger than any possible enemy alliance. There is no doubt that Israel will withstand any military attack in the foreseeable future. If Israel's military strength were not so strong, American support for Israel would not be widely recognized. Although the escalation of terrorist attacks in Israel has aroused widespread concern about Israel's public safety, the vast majority of US military assistance has nothing to do with anti-terrorist actions.

In short, just as the United States supports its allies in other regions, the motivation for the United States to strengthen its support for the Israeli government is not the security needs and moral support of the recipient countries, but its fundamental purpose is to meet the strategic interests of the United States itself.

Strategic factors to promote the continuous assistance of the United States

There is a bipartisan consciousness among American policy makers that Israel has promoted American interests in the Middle East and other regions. ? Israel successfully prevented the radical nationalist movements in Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine from winning. ? Israel contained Syria, a long-time ally of the Soviet Union. ? The Israeli air force has an absolute advantage in this area. ? Several wars in which Israel participated made this area a testing ground for American weapons against Soviet weapons. ? This has become an effective channel to provide American weapons to some American governments and organizations that are inconvenient to provide military assistance openly, such as apartheid South Africa, Iran during the Islamic Republic period, military factions in Guatemala and the opposition in Nicaragua. Israeli military advisers provided assistance to the Nigerian opposition, military factions in El Salvador and foreign occupation forces in Namibia and Western Sahara. ? Israeli intelligence agencies provide support for American intelligence gathering and covert operations. ? Israel's missiles have a range as far as the former Soviet Union, and its nuclear arsenal contains hundreds of nuclear weapons, and it has cooperated with the US military industry to develop new jet fighters and anti-missile defense systems.

With the strength of Israel, American aid has also increased.

The American aid model to Israel is very meaningful. Israel's brilliant victory in the 1967 war showed its military superiority in the Middle East, followed by American aid, with an increase of 450%. According to The New York Times, this increase is partly due to Israel's willingness to provide the United States with Soviet weapons seized during the war. 1970- 197 1 During the civil war in Jordan, Israel's role in restraining foreign revolutionary movements gradually appeared, and American aid increased sevenfold. 1973, the largest air transport in American history was realized in the war against the Arab army. Israel demonstrated its ability to defeat Soviet-style armed forces with obvious advantages, and then American military assistance increased by 800%. At the same time, Britain's decision to withdraw its troops from "east of Suez River" also led to large-scale arms sales and logistical cooperation to King Shah of Iran, all of which were important contents of Nixon Doctrine.

Aid to Israel quadrupled 1979, the Iranian empire collapsed, the Israeli right-wing Likud group came to power, and the Camp David agreement was signed. The agreement contains provisions to increase military assistance, which makes it more like a tripartite military agreement than a traditional peace treaty (it is worth noting that although the Beijing government refuses to abide by the relevant provisions of Palestinian autonomy, the agreement continues to provide additional assistance to Israel). 1982 aid increased again after Israel invaded Lebanon. 1983 and 1984, the United States and Israel signed a memorandum of strategic cooperation and military planning, and conducted the first joint naval and air force exercise. Israel received another1500 million US dollars in economic assistance, and another 500,000 US dollars was used to develop new jet fighters.

During and after the Gulf War, American aid increased by 650 million dollars. Even when Israel stepped up its repression of the people in the occupied territories, and even invaded the Palestinian autonomous territories stipulated in the international treaties guaranteed by the US government, American aid continued to grow, especially after the 9 1 1 terrorist attacks.

The conclusion is clear: the stronger Israel is, the more willing it is to cooperate with the United States, and the greater its assistance will be.

Ensure Israel's military superiority.

Therefore, the United States' massive assistance to Israel is not out of concern for Israel's survival, but because the United States hopes that Israel will continue to maintain political control over Palestine and military control over the Middle East. In fact, what the leaders of the two parties in the United States want is not a regional military balance, but to ensure Israel's military superiority.

Since the 9 1 1 terrorist attack, there have been some discussions in the United States about how much the United States should support the right-wing government policy of Israeli Sharon. Some more pragmatic conservatives who worked in the Bush administration, such as Secretary of State Powell, warned that unconditional support for Sharon's government during Israel's large-scale suppression of the occupied territories would lead to the dilemma of the war on terrorism that needed to be carried out in cooperation with Arab countries. Some right-wingers, such as Wolfowitz of the Ministry of National Defense, believe that Sharon is an indispensable ally in the war on terrorism, and the Palestinian resistance is fundamentally part of the plot of international terrorists against a democratic society.

Other factors

Supporting Israel's current aggression and repression is tantamount to supporting Indonesia's 24-year occupation and repression of East Timor and Morocco's current occupation and repression of Western Sahara. Washington is willing to support its allies' serious violations of international law and human rights norms and prevent the United Nations or other parties from challenging it, if this is in line with the strategic interests of the United States. At this time, no ethnic or ideological considerations can influence the decision makers. As long as the political norms of super-moral forces dominate, the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East and other regions will not truly reflect the long-standing beliefs of the American public, and the international relations of the United States will not be determined by humanitarian norms and moral norms. American support for some repressive acts has now been challenged, and American policies towards Vietnam, Central America, South Africa and East Timor have also been adjusted. The grassroots movement supporting peace and justice, the United Nations, the media and liberals in other fields, called on the United States to stop supporting the repression in these countries. However, for other similar support policies, such as Americans supporting Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara, few Americans understand this and challenge this policy, so it is still out of the sight of legislators and experts.

Israeli and Palestinian affairs are different. Many people question American policy, but there is widespread public opinion among government elites and the media that the Bush administration's foreign policy of supporting Israeli occupation should be supported. In fact, many liberal Democrats in Congress who support other foreign policy progressive movements also support President Bush's Palestinian-Israeli policy, even more to the right. Therefore, in addition to some obvious strategic considerations, there are other factors that make it difficult for peace and human rights activists to make a choice on this issue. These factors include:

Many liberals-especially government leaders and media personnel who grew up after the war-identify with Israel emotionally. Many Americans agree with Israel's domestic democracy, mature social system (such as Kibbutz), high social equality and its important role as a refuge for Jews who have been exiled and oppressed for a long time. Many Americans feel guilty about the anti-Semitic movement in the West and have personal feelings for American Jews who strongly support Israel. They are afraid that criticizing Israel may trigger a new anti-Semitic movement, so they are unwilling to admit that Israel has violated human rights norms and international law.

Christian justice-including tens of millions of followers and the party's main support groups-has made the media and government leaders openly support Israeli Sharon and other right-wing leaders. According to the theological view of the Savior, the gathering of Jews in the Holy Land is regarded as the harbinger of the second coming of Christ, the war between Israel and Palestine is regarded as the continuation of the war between Israel and the Philistines, and God, as the master of all things, has determined that this land belongs only to Israel. Regardless of the secular views on international law and national self-determination.

Conservative mainstream Jewish organizations mobilized large-scale out-of-hospital activities, financial donations from Jewish communities, public pressure from news media and other public forums to support the Israeli government. Although the role of the Jewish lobby is usually exaggerated-some even claim to be the most important factor affecting American policy-its role is still remarkable, especially for some highly competitive congressional elections, and it can also put pressure on those who seek to adjust American policy (including more and more progressive Jews).

The arms industry-donating five times as much money to congressional campaigns and lobbying activities as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other organizations supporting Israel-strongly supports large-scale arms sales to Israel and other American allies in the Middle East. For example, it is much easier for a member of Congress to oppose the sale of $60 million weapons to Indonesia than to oppose the sale of $2 billion weapons to Israel, especially at present, many congressional districts have military factories that manufacture these weapons.

Racial discrimination against Arabs and Muslims is widespread in American society, especially in the press. In addition, it is also mixed with the Middle East's recognition of Zionism, which is considered to be similar to our pioneering history in the North American continent-building a new country on the basis of lofty idealistic values and suppressing and expelling indigenous people.

The influence of progressive organizations in the United States that challenge the American Palestinian-Israeli policy is very limited. For a long time, most mainstream peace and human rights organizations have been reluctant to accuse American Jews and other liberal voters who support the Israeli government, fearing that criticism of Israeli policies may trigger a new anti-Semitic movement. Therefore, in the absence of any opposition pressure, all liberals in the parliament succumbed to the wishes of the supporters of the Israeli government. Many ultra-left organizations and others take an extremely anti-Israel stance, that is, they not only oppose Israel's policies, but also question Israel's legitimate right to exist. This has greatly damaged the credibility of their position. In addition, in the criticism of Israel by some conservative individuals and organizations, their exaggerated remarks about Israel's economic and political strength imply anti-Semitism, which may cause a new crisis to American policy.

conclusion

American support for Israel, like American support for other allies, is mainly based on American security interests, but there are also some other complicated reasons. However, the United States urgently needs to change its policy of supporting Israel. This policy will not only bring great disasters to the Palestinians and the Arab people, but also lead to more and more radicals and extremists in the Arab and Islamic world, and ultimately affect the long-term interests of the United States and Israel.

Fundamentally speaking, there is no difference between supporting Israel and supporting Palestine, because Israel's security and the legitimate rights of Palestine are not mutually exclusive, but exist. American support for the Israeli government has repeatedly undermined the efforts of Israeli domestic peace forces to change their policies. The late Israeli general and member of parliament Marty? Khalid said that this prompted Israel to tend to a "tough and uncompromising position." Perhaps the best assistance that the United States can provide to Israel is "cruel love", that is, unconditionally supporting Israel to resolutely end its occupation and live in peace and security within the borders recognized by the international community. For those who firmly believe in freedom, democracy and the rule of law, it is not easy to do this.