THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
by John
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
For the past several decades, and
especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern
policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering
support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the
region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US
security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal
in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own
security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of
another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was
based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither
explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic
support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the
region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the
activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to
skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the
national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that
US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are
essentially identical.
Since the October War in 1973, Washington has
provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state.
It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military
assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War
Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives
about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the
foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse
is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per
capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.
Other
recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its
entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn
interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required
to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent
of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only
recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it
virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US
opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has
provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it
access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets.
Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies
and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support.
Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of
Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security
Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear
arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes
Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from
the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War.
Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well
as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key
role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In
each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but
the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at
Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s
lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle
East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation.
......