This would happen whether or not these companies had any personal or ideological connection to Israel, but these relationships would tend to grow over time (between contractors and the Israeli government.)
edit: The US as a whole gets nothing but hassle and cognitive dissonance out of the relationship, but just like any war racket, people producing the material for that war get wealthy enough to get their politicians elected and perpetuate the process.
I do not think that this is true at all. A lot of interests converge in the US relationship with the Israeli state, but Judaism as a religion isn't the dominant partner. The US is full of antisemites, and the refusal of the US to take in refugees as WWII was brewing contributed to the intensity of the Holocaust, and the increase in Jewish support for the Zionist project.
You can easily become a pro-Israel politician if you are an antisemite who is taking money from a contractor (who is also antisemitic) who sells arms to Israel, and you're representing a state filled with evangelicals who believe that Israel will cause the second coming of Jesus Christ, who will either convert or condemn all of the Jews to eternal suffering.
Israel doesn't control anything, and the US doesn't intrinsically care about Israel (which is why it's constantly insecure in the relationship.) Wealthy people in the US use Israel for their own purposes, and Israel (largely Likudnik Israel) spends lots of time and effort to remain valuable to those people.
I think that a few old, terrible Jewish billionaires who think that their rabid support of Israel (through donating to US right-wingers) will get them into heaven despite their terrible personal and business ethics get an inordinate amount of attention, and end up characterizing all of Israeli lobbying for a lot of people.
These kinds of relationships require a fair bit of quid pro quo, and of course for a country like Israel whose very national security depends upon a cozy relationship with America, it's perfectly understandable that they'd be spying on American influencers wherever and whenever possible. In fact, it's unofficially tolerated in the intelligence service as a cost of doing business. Same goes for the foibles of the crown prince in Saudi Arabia (which have by now been conveniently forgotten by the press and everyone else).
Once you've made friends who are useful to your grander plans, it's best to ignore the annoying things they do.
The US spends billions on Israel itself, gives them more access then any other nation, they spend billions on paying of Egypt, the US lends international support on EVERY LEVEL, Israel was one of the primary drivers that got US into Iraq and tried their best (and they still are) to do the same with Iran. The relationship with Israel is one of the prime tools of propaganda for every single terrorist group in the Middle East. Israel is a rough stat that illegally acquired nuclear weapons and the list goes on and on.
9/11 was a direct caused by US the relationship with these nations. One of the main bombers prime motivation was revenge because of what Israel did in Lebanon, OBL own motivation was that US troupes should not be on Saudi soil (and that got him banned from Saudi Arabia). Because of the Saudi alliance Obama placated them by allowing a genocidal war in Yemen and people actually thought that is a reasonable thing to do. And I could go on about many more bad effects of this relationship.
Now I'm not saying these nations are uniquely evil and I'm not even saying the US should be allied with them in some way, but these relationships have grown far beyond what makes sense from the perspective of US population but not if you are in the political class.
Israel appears to be democratic but discriminates heavily and are also driven to a great extent by extremist hardliners and outright corruption (ie Netanyahu's numbers are down, so he wants to annex more of the West Bank). Also, you’re not supposed to criticize anything they do out of fear of being labeled an anti Semite.
The "anti semite" fears are an American thing; outside of America, nobody cares. And that's to be expected... Israel gets no help from anyone else, so why should she care what they think? America, however, is a mind to be guarded, to ensure that her protection remains in the future. And this is a perfectly reasonable tactical stance to take for someone in Israel's precarious position.
Obviously it's not so simple as this in reality. You have idealists and zealots and hardliners all jockeying for control within any given government. But the primary driving force is that of state security.
The relationship between Israel and its Arab minority is much more nuanced than you think. I’d call it passive aggressive, going both ways.
Does that include the Palestinians, do the Israeli government counts them as people?
The 20% I referred to are Israeli-Arabs.
Why should that be considered?
Because it’s been historically progressive in its relationship towards minorities.
Because it’s not like it’s persecuting a tiny group of the population for sport, it’s that there’s a lot of tugging between a minority and majority which are much further apart in culture, religion and traditions than the whites and blacks in America.
Because it’s reasonable to expect that issues appearing in the American societal fabric such as discrimination would show just as much in Israel with its huge proportional minority share.
It’s not that Israel is racist as much as it is that there are discrimination issues in societies everywhere and this is just another instance.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000UZQIF6/
“They describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Mearsheimer and Walt provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America's posture throughout the Middle East—in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America's national interest nor Israel's long-term interest. The lobby's influence also affects America's relationship with important allies and increases dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror.”
* Improvements to US military technology (Israel tweaks stuff and then we use their tweaks)
* Anti-terrorism training and expertise (we started caring a lot more in 2001; they've been dealing with it longer than that)
* A liberal democracy in a part of the world without any others (whether or not you value this is up to you, but many Americans do)
* Intelligence
* A lot of American tech companies have offices in Israel, which means we have an interest in its stability and prosperity
Pretty sure the leaders of Israel have made it illegal, and the grounds for exclusion from the Knesset, to disagree with that statement.
But it's not accepted to point out that Israel is a distinctly illiberal state by it's overt, foundational policy.
Israel's neighbors were the ones who encouraged Palestinian leaders to reject both citizenship and two-state solutions across multiple deal opportunities and instead opt for waging an endless violent rebellion. And when the coordinated wars were lost and the time came for offering aid, resources, and immigration opportunities - neighboring countries offered the Palestinians very little compared to the opportunities that Israel offers. They did not step up.
“A candidates' list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:
“1. negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
“2. incitement to racism;
“3. support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel.”
Putting aside the nuances of "Jewish state" and what that does or doesn't mean, if you go to Israel you will find a culture and a people far closer to American values than anywhere else in the region.
Perhaps true, but these days Lebanon is up in the running. They do have a weird approach to "power sharing" in government, but it's not like Israel is free from its own sort of weirdness, as you've mentioned.
>The attack "couldn't be anything else but deliberate," the NSA's director, Lt. Gen. Marshall Carter, later told Congress.
>"I don't think you'll find many people at NSA who believe it was accidental," Benson Buffham, a former deputy NSA director, said in an interview.
>"I just always assumed that the Israeli pilots knew what they were doing," said Harold Saunders, then a member of the National Security Council staff and later assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs.
>"So for me, the question really is who issued the order to do that and why? That's the really interesting thing."
>The answer, if there is one, will probably never be known. Gen. Moshe Dayan, then the country's minister of defense; Levi Eshkol, the Israeli prime minister; and Golda Meir, his successor, are all dead.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.h...
In the cases of both Israeli lobby influence and Saudi royal's influence, the answer is money and power. Our members of congress are very easily influenced by "donations", and those two groups happen to be particularly wealthy.
On the flip side, the Mossad and many other intelligence groups are particularly good at getting blackmail material on politicians. If you don't play ball and you get in their way, they have the ability to ruin your career as well.
In my opinion, I would say the turning point where the US started to prioritize Israel as an ally was after the Suez Crisis. "In October 1965 Eisenhower told Jewish fundraiser and Republican party supporter Max M. Fisher that he greatly regretted forcing Israel to withdraw from the Sinai peninsula; Vice-President Nixon recalled that Eisenhower expressed the same view to him on several occasions." [Alteras, Isaac (1993). Eisenhower and Israel: U.S.-Israeli Relations, 1953-1960].
After Eisenhower's presidency, JFK further strengthened this alliance:
"As president, Kennedy initiated the creation of security ties with Israel, and he is credited as the founder of the US-Israeli military alliance, which would be continued under subsequent presidents. Kennedy ended the arms embargo that the Eisenhower and Truman administrations had enforced on Israel. Describing the protection of Israel as a moral and national commitment, he was the first to introduce the concept of a "special relationship" (as he described it to Golda Meir) between the US and Israel.[207]"
One exception was when JFK resisted Israel's efforts to develop nuclear weapons, which they felt was crucial in their survival as a country. "In a May 1963 letter to Ben-Gurion, Kennedy wrote that he was skeptical and stated that American support to Israel could be in jeopardy if reliable information on the Israeli nuclear program was not forthcoming, Ben-Gurion repeated previous reassurances that Dimona was being developed for peaceful purposes." You'll note that he was assassinated only months later. Not to get all conspiracy theory, but I've always felt the timing was a bit suspect.
Long story short, the US as a nation may not get much benefit from the relationship, but the individual politicians do. Until we get rid of the concept of lobbies, PACs, and require all campaigns to be tax-funded, politicians will continue to serve the countries and groups that pay them, not the American populace.
It's tolerated because US engages in similar behavior against it's allies. Officially the perpetrator denies allegations, and unofficially they pay some undisclosed penance.
The only real thing of note was the lack of official rebuke from the Trump Administration.
This is also why the US has been funneling israel billions of dollars in aid to develop its military industry over the past few decades. US has gained plenty from this alliance, it has projected power in the Middle East through an ally that is terrifyingly overprepared for war, allowing it to maintain the artificial order in the Middle East and petrodollar dominance.
Given the number of times multiple of its neighbors have attempted to invade and destroy the country and the fact that many of the neighbors _still_ don't recognize Israel's legitimacy, I'm interested in how you figure Israel is "overprepared" for war. They seem just the right amount prepared, i.e. ready to fight a battle for their existence against multiple large enemies at the drop of a hat.
Given history and given the stakes (lost war could mean another genocide), why should Israel not be prepared at this level?
You're downvoted, but this has absolutely been my observation as well
Yes, that situation seems comparable to the smears of antisemitism thrown against Jeremy Corbyn too.
>If you try to end it, you'll be called antisemites, Holocaust deniers, etc. until you submit.
>> this has absolutely been my observation as well
Have you considered that you've been called antisemites because you are. Not because you have experience with "try[ing] to end it"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Political_antisem...
US is not controlled by Israel and you're idiots for thinking that. There many logical ways to reach this conclusion, but just for fun here's a question: If it's so easy to control ~350m people of the US wouldn't the controllers be China or Russia? or wouldn't some rich cocaine manufacturer lobby its way to the congress and have that sold in supermarkets?
(I do realize that using the term "idiots" means I'll get downvotes, but isn't there an exception considering that they really are idiots (and antisemites))
Dismissing criticism of Israel and the Israeli lobby as anti Semitic is just an attempt to control the conversation, nothing more.
I can criticize the American government and insult my president, and that’s generally more tolerable (although people may disagree) than criticizing the government of Israel.
You won’t be jailed but your reputation will be tarnished because the narrative has been that not supporting Israel 100% unconditionally is equivalent to being anti Semitic.
It’s just a move to shut down any discussion. We can debate gun reform, healthcare, climate bills, etc. we can criticize allies all over the world, but Israel should not be questioned.
If you don’t see the problem with that, you’re probably part of the problem.
In general, anyone who speaks against Israel policies is ridiculed as an anti Semite. Your post and your personal attacks are once more trying to control the discussion.
This is false. It's amazing that people actually think that when in practice many American politicians from all sides (including aipac itself) often speak against Israel.
Honestly, I'm not sure what aipac does or does not do, that's not the discussion I went into.
The US (and the rest of the Western economies) gains two very important things: first of all, an allied democracy with real military power that is sitting right next to Arabic dictatorship states where the US are, at best, viewed as the ultimate Satan - thus ensuring the US gets and keeps (!) access to cheap oil. The second thing is that all the military hardware Israel buys or gets "donated" as military aid by the US secures American, French and German jobs in the defense industry.
> If you try to end it, you'll be called antisemites, Holocaust deniers, etc. until you submit.
If you're really claiming Israel is the boss / "secret ruler", you don't need to complain about being called an antisemite. The trope of Israel / "shadow Jews" ruling the world is one of the oldest antisemitic conspiracy theories in history.
They really don't serve us that well for be our so-called "Greatest Ally."
You can't just hide behind "that's antisemitism" in all cases of analysis of Israel's influence in geopolitics and specifically in U.S politics ..it's not being intellectually honest
It just reeks of appeasement.
Is this a euphemism for saying "Many of these people have relatives killed by America or one of its puppet governments"?
The language Islamic radicals use to refer to the Westerns is often “crusaders”. It’s a conflict rooted in religion, not practicalities or modern time hostilities.
But I suggest you read the article, it’d be better for explaining the reality than a thousand argumentative HN posts.
If anything US is allies with some worst ones in terms of supporting radical extremism.
But don't let facts get in the way of your propaganda.
In the thats in the past. However they didn't break the peace agreement with Israel.
> Hamas controls Gaza
Gaza is not a country.
> Hezbullah controls a big chunk of southern Lebanon.
True on that but without Israel there Hezbollah would have little reason to oppose the US.
At the same time the reality is that Syria is militarly over, Jordan has made peace, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are basically allies, Turkey has no interest in attacking Israel, Egypt is incapable of true forign policy at the moment.
So we have basically all major powers, and Hezbullah.
Iran has physical presence in Syria (Besides the Hezbullah proxy in Syria).
Gaza is an autonomous neighbor ruled by an Islamic terror organization being a country or not does not change the fact that missles are being launched at Israeli civilians every week.
There is still ISIS in Sinai. (And although the Islamic brotherhood lost control of the country, they are not gone)
yes. Jordan is quiet.
"True on that but without Israel there Hezbollah would have little reason to oppose the US." -You really have no idea how religious extremist work. Hezbullah has something against all non-(their kind of)-muslim
"the reality is that Syria is militarly over" -not really. ISIS is pretty much gone there but there is still a lot of fighting and it's not like the winners are the nice guys
Both seem misleading at best. What's the US's argument from self-interest for tolerating this kind of thing?