'Jewish lobby' an anti-semitic myth PDF Print E-mail
Sunday, 16 May 2010 12:29

One of the most common explanations for the unwavering US support for Israel is the power of the “Israel lobby.”  But is this explanation really viable?

Groups like AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) are undeniably powerful. In 1997, Fortune magazine named AIPAC the second most powerful lobby in America. Today, AIPAC claims to be a “a 100,000-member national grassroots movement”, and its members pass resolutions and legislation supporting Israel’s right to self-defence, in support of sanctions against Iran, and ensuring economic and military aid. There are also numerous other groups whose aim is to strengthen US-Israel relations.  
However the argument that the US supports and funds Israel because of the pressure of the pro-Israel lobby does not see the full picture. Firstly, it opens the door to anti-Semitic arguments that it’s “the Jews” to blame for the genocide against the Palestinians. But more importantly, it lets the US ruling class off the hook. Israel is vital to US interests in the Middle East, and that’s why it receives so much support. The power of groups like AIPAC is a consequence of US backing of Israel, not the cause.
Israel is clearly the biggest recipient of US military and economic aid. Every year, the US gives around $3 billion dollars in aid to Israel; this will continue under Obama, who recently approved $30 billion in aid to Israel over the next decade. The next largest recipients of US aid are Egypt, Pakistan and Colombia. But you never hear of an Egypt, Pakistan or Colombia lobby, because there is no such thing. The US backs these states, just as it backs Israel, because it is in their strategic interests to do so.
The US still wants to dominate Latin America, and needs reliable allies like Colombia. And the Middle East is a strategically important area, a central oil-producing region and the cross roads of major trading routes. A 1945 US State Department analysis described Saudi Arabian oil as “that stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in history.” Hence the endless jostling between world powers for control of the region.
This strategic importance of the Middle East is precisely why the US has always been a strong supporter of Israel. It was one of the first countries to recognise the newly created state in 1948, taking just two days to do so. This was at the time that America was starting to overtake Britain as the dominant superpower in the region after World War Two, so the US was keen to have friendly relations with the new state in the area.
Israel was also a new state which potentially could have turned to the USSR for support. A major part of imperialism is not just pure scrambling for resources, but competition with the other imperialist powers. With parts of the Middle East bordering on the USSR, it was even more important for the US to have bases and friendly regimes that could undermine Russian influence in the region. This rivalry between the US and Russia was taking off around the time Israel was established, adding further incentive for the US to back Israel. The US wanted to prevent the USSR allying with the newly-formed state, and to use Israel to actively weaken Russian interests in other parts of the Middle East.
Every US president has recognised this importance, even Jimmy Carter, who is now portrayed as pro-Palestinian. At the first anniversary of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty and White House joint conference, in March 1980 he said “a strong Israel and a strong Egypt serve our own security interests.”  In February 1980 at the United Jewish Appeal National Young Leadership Conference he said “I am opposed to an independent Palestinian state, because … this would be a destabilising factor in the Middle East and would certainly not serve the United States’ interests.”   Even the AIPAC website states that “aid to Israel has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy and a cost-effective way of serving America’s national security interests in this critically important region.”
Perhaps more explicit is Democratic Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who in 1973 said “the strength and Western orientation of Israel ….safeguards US access to oil… [it] serve[s] to inhibit and contain those irresponsible and radical elements in certain Arab states, who, were they free to do so, would pose a grave threat indeed to our principal source of petroleum in Persian gulf.”
Israel is not the only state in the region to get major support from the US. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for example, are both US allies and receive extensive military and economic aid. However there are several factors that make Israel unique. It is these factors, not the existence of the Israel lobby, that explain why the US backs it more strongly than its other allies in the Middle East.
Israel provides a much more stable ally than other Arab states. Being a colonial settler state, its citizens are for the most part bound up in the whole project of Israel. They generally support Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians, and many materially benefit from Israel’s plunder of Palestinian water, land and crops. Israeli houses and settlements are surrounded by lush, green sculptured gardens, while Palestinian towns often have raw sewage running through their streets and live on less than 100 litres of water per person a day. This is not to say that there are no class divisions or class tensions in Israel, and no opposition to the treatment of Palestinians, but it is markedly muted compared to surrounding nations.
The Arab states on the other hand, face mass opposition at home. A large Palestinian diaspora throughout the region plus popular sympathy for their plight make these nations unstable. Class divisions are also stark, with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan being run by dictatorships. Many working class Arabs oppose ties with the US and with Israel, as well as the repressive domestic policy of these dictatorships. In 2007, a massive strike wave swept through the textile factories of Mahala in Egypt and threatened the Mubarak regime. There were also massive protests in Egypt during the bombing of Gaza a year ago, calling on Mubarak to open the Rafah Crossing and allow refugees flee the Gaza Strip to Egypt.
There can also be a pressure for the Arab states to bow to this popular pressure and lead nationalist movements against the US. The US has learnt this the hard way. In 1953, the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh attempted to nationalise the oil industry, leading the CIA to back a coup to install the pro-US Shah Mohammad Reza. However he was later overthrown by a working class revolt in 1979. Then in Egypt in 1952, Iraq in 1958 and Yemen in 1962 Arab nationalists overthrew Western-backed leaders. It was around this time that Israel became the premier watchdog state in the region. Up until this point, Israel was just one of many US allies in the Middle East. The rise of these Arab national movements led the US to throw its full weight behind Israel, recognising the importance of a more stable and reliable ally.
An article in Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz from the time of the Mossadegh overthrow sums up Israel’s new role: “Strengthening Israel helps the Western powers maintain equilibrium and stability in the Middle East. Israel is to become the watchdog…. If for any reason the Western powers should sometimes prefer to close their eyes, Israel could be relied upon to punish one or several neighbouring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.”
Proponents of the Israel Lobby argument point to sometimes divergent interests or actions of the US and Israel – for example, Israel being too aggressive in relation to neighbouring Arab states that the US may be trying to negotiate with.
This argument still ignores the role that Israel plays. As an attack dog, it is possible for Israel to break off its leash and go further than the US would like. And this isn’t necessarily a bad thing for America - in fact, they have long used Israel to do their dirty work in the region. They often use funding to Israel to get around sanctions and trade embargos. For example, in 1978, Israel sold US jets and helicopters to Indonesia, while Indonesia was under the Suharto dictatorship and committing genocide against the East Timorese.                
They can use Israel to attack their enemies, while being seen to be the brokers of peace and looking as if they are trying to rein in Israeli excesses. For example, when Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, it was a useful distraction from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was also part of the broader ‘War on Terror’ and US targeting of Islamist groups like Hezbollah. However it was Israel who provided the military personnel and weaponry, and whose reputation was tarnished, not the US.    
This is why US presidents can make vague criticisms of Israel, while continuing military aid. Obama may have made some minor noises about the illegal settlements, yet he has actually increased aid. He has blocked every UN attempt to hold Israel accountable for war crimes committed during the war on Gaza. Just like every US president before him, he is continuing to look after vital US interests in the Middle East.

Frances L