%%last updated to match The Deprogram Wiki on 2023-08-13%%
US Support
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid: as of February 2022, the United States had provided Israel US$150 billion (non-inflation-adjusted) in bilateral assistance. In 1999, the US government signed a Memorandum of Understanding which committed to providing Israel with at least US$2.67 billion in military aid annually, for the following ten years; in 2009, the annual amount was raised to US$3 billion; and in 2019, the amount was raised again, now standing at a minimum of US$3.8 billion that the US is committed to providing Israel each year. Former Senator Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, referred to Israel as "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East".
The United States is also Israel's largest trading partner, with two-way trade totalling $36 billion in 2013 and nearly $50 billion by 2023.
In addition to financial and military aid, the United States also provides large-scale political support to Israel, having used its United Nations Security Council veto power 42 times against resolutions condemning Israel, out of a total of 83 times in which its veto has ever been used. Between 1991 and 2011, out of the 24 vetoes invoked by the United States, 15 were used to protect Israel. The United States' readiness to stand on behalf of Israel has been linked to the influence of pro-Israeli lobbies in U.S. politics, most notably AIPAC.
Another source of the Lobby’s power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘there are a lot of guys at the working level up here’ – on Capitol Hill – ‘who happen to be Jewish, who are willing ... to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness ... These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators ... You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.’
AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates...
The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’
— John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. (2006). The Israel Lobby
Christian Zionism
Since the 1940s, Christian Zionism has become a global movement with a vast network of organizations. Both American and global Christian Zionism have promoted a theological, political, and cultural transformation in Christian attitudes toward Jews and Israel which has shaped US-Israel diplomacy and Jewish-Christian relations around the globe.
— "Christian Zionism, the Religious Right, and Donald Trump: History’s Role in Contemporary Politics" | Harvard Kennedy School: ASH Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation
Christian Zionists interpret certain biblical passages, particularly from the Old Testament, as predicting the return of Jews to the Promised Land and the restoration of Israel as a nation. They view the modern State of Israel as a fulfillment of these prophecies and consider it a necessary step towards the Second Coming of Christ.
US Christian Zionism may be characterized as a theo-political movement stemming from American Conservative Evangelicalism, which advocates that at the end of the time Christ will come to rule the world for thousand years before the Last Judgment and that He will do so centred on Greater Israel and focused on Jerusalem. Although difficult to assess, the current proportion of Christian Zionists among the 100-130 million of American Evangelicals (the population of United States is 293 million) could be estimated around 20-25%. In light of an Eschatological fulfilment, Christian Zionist congregations and lobbies, even more dedicated than the majority of Jewish interest groups, provide vast political, financial and practical support to the modern State of Israel.
— Carlo Aldrovandi. (2009). Forcing the End Times: US Christian Zionism and Israel
The British, in particular, viewed the territory of Palestine as strategically significant due to its proximity to the Suez Canal and its potential as a route to India, one of their most prized colonial possessions. Additionally, there were British officials and politicians, including those influenced by Christian Zionism, who held a strong belief in the historical and religious significance of Palestine to the Jewish people.
Irrespective of its genuine strategic objectives or its complex historical consequences, the campaign in Palestine during the first world war was seen by the British government as an invaluable exercise in propaganda. Keen to capitalize on the romantic appeal of victory in the Holy Land, British propagandists repeatedly alluded to Richard Coeur de Lion's failure to win Jerusalem, thus generating the widely disseminated image of the 1917-18 Palestine campaign as the 'Last' or the 'New' Crusade. This representation, in turn, with its anti-Moslem overtones, introduced complicated problems for the British propaganda apparatus, to the point (demonstrated here through an array of official documentation, press accounts and popular works) of becoming enmeshed in a hopeless web of contradictory directives.
— Eitan Bar-Yosef. (2001). The Last Crusade? British Propaganda and the Palestine Campaign, 1917-18
The British refusal to grant independence to the Arabs after the Arab Uprising against the Ottoman Empire in WWI can be attributed to the prevailing colonial mindset of the time (which led the British to prioritize their own strategic and geopolitical interests over the promises made to the Arabs) and the appeal of controlling a geopolitically and Biblically significant territory. The desire to secure their own interests ultimately outweighed their commitment to honoring their promises to the Arabs.
Weaponizing Anti-Anti-Semitism
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are two prominent organizations that advocate for Israel and combat antisemitism. While their primary objectives are to support Israel's interests and protect Jewish communities from discrimination, there have been instances where accusations of antisemitism have been used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. It is important to note that not all criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic, and it is crucial to differentiate between legitimate criticism and actual instances of prejudice.
However, Zionist organizations have weaponized the accusation of "antisemitism" to silence criticism of Israel in Western Liberal Democracies. Anyone who is critical of Israel is labeled an Anti-Zionist, and therefore, an antisemite.
The ADL makes the following definitions:
Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. The vast majority of Jews around the world feel a connection or kinship with Israel, whether or not they explicitly identify as Zionists, and regardless of their opinions on the policies of the Israeli government.
Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, the movement for the self-determination and statehood of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. Anti-Zionism is often expressed, explicitly or implicitly in the rejection of Jewish nationhood and the right to self-determination; the vilification of individuals and groups associated with Zionism; and the downplaying or negation of the historic and spiritual Jewish connection to the land of Israel.
Anti-Zionism is distinct from criticism of the policies or actions of the government of Israel, or critiques of specific policies of the pre-state Zionist movement, in that it attacks the foundational legitimacy of Jewish statehood.
Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect, as it invokes anti-Jewish tropes, is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews and/or those who feel a connection to Israel, equates Zionism with Nazism and other genocidal regimes, and renders Jews less worthy of sovereignty and nationhood than other peoples and states.
Despite theoretically allowing room for criticism of specific policies, any general criticism of Israel is interpreted through this lens as antisemitic, and the critic is dismissed as a bigot and silenced. Politicians, particularly in the West, regularly get into trouble for criticizing Israel. There have been countless examples of progressive politicians being forced to publicly apologize after criticizing Israel.
Criticism of Israel, this way, is manipulated and distorted into claims of antisemitism as a means of silencing dissenting voices and discouraging open discussion. This tactic involves conflating legitimate criticism of Israel and Israeli policies with prejudice against Jewish people, thereby undermining the credibility of those raising concerns. By falsely equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, as the ADL does, individuals and organizations can casually delegitimize valid perspectives and stifle debate on this contentious issue. This manipulation not only harms free speech and the ability to engage in constructive dialogue, but also trivializes the seriousness of true anti-Semitism, diverting attention away from genuine instances of discrimination. It is crucial to distinguish between criticism of Israel and Israeli policies and true antisemitism.