"The Protestant right makes up a significant part of the pro-Israel lobby; conversely, many of Israel's harshest American critics are Jewish. Groups like Jews Against the Occupation reject the Israeli government’s policy of "subjugating Palestinians for the sake of keeping Jews safe,"
"The pro-Israel lobby indeed plays a very significant role in the relationship between the United States and Israel, and arms transfers is no exception. The pro-Israel lobby consists of a coalition of many distinct groups, all interested in promoting ties between the U.S. and Israel. By far the most powerful member of this lobby is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is one of the top five lobbies in Washington and by far the most powerful foreign lobby. It would be a mistake to assume that "pro-Israel" is synonymous with "Jewish." Jews make up only 2% of the American population, far too small to make a significant electoral difference except in a very few congressional districts. Many others are involved in the pro-Israel lobby for many different reasons - for example, the Protestant right makes up a significant part of the pro-Israel lobby; conversely, many of Israel's harshest American critics are Jewish. Groups like Jews Against the Occupation reject the Israeli government’s policy of "subjugating Palestinians for the sake of keeping Jews safe," arguing that security can only come from mutual respect. They also call on the American government to stop its support, alleging that American aid has "propped up the occupation and fuelled the Israeli government’s war machine."(21)
The pro-Israel lobby has considerable financial resources, and it targets its efforts. A telling example is the case of Jesse Helms, the notoriously conservative and anti-foreign aid Republican Senator from North Carolina. Senator Helms was the most powerful Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and was also rated by AIPAC as the most anti-Israel member of the Senate. The pro-Israel lobby saw Helms as a real threat to Israel's future support from America, and mounted a campaign to unseat him when he came up for re-election in 1984. Pro-Israel political action committees contributed over $200,000 to the campaign of Helms' challenger, North Carolina Governor James Hunt. Helms was ultimately successful in his re-election bid, but won only by a very small margin, far too small for a powerful incumbent.
Despite the fact that their candidate did not win, the pro-Israel lobby's efforts had the desired effect. Helms got the message and executed a remarkable turnaround with respect to Israel. He gathered as many of his Jewish constituents as he could find and they together made a pilgrimage to Israel, where Helms, a Baptist, had himself photographed wearing a yarmulke and kissing the Western Wall. From then on Jesse Helms became an unwavering supporter of ever-increasing American aid to Israel.(22) More recently, intense pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby has contributed to the political failures of U.S. Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard, two Democrats who had criticized U.S. support of Israel and subsequently lost Congressional primaries to more Israel-friendly opponents.
Another key actor in the U.S.-Israeli relationship is the Washington Institue for Near East Policy (WINEP). The Institute is not active in Congress like AIPAC, but it is extremely influential in the Washington foreign policy circle. WINEP tries to present itself as an independent think tank that is "friendly to Israel but doing credible research on the Middle East in a realistic and balanced way".(23) Critics have challenged this claim, citing the almost unwaveringly pro-Israeli slant of the Institute's work, the heavy personnel overlaps between the Institute and the openly pro-Israeli AIPAC, and the number of WINEP board members who are involved in pro-Israeli political action committees around the country.
Whether WINEP is actually biased or simply sympathetic to the Israeli cause, its clout in Washington is enormous where Middle Eastern policy is concerned. For evidence of this, look no further than the revolving door relationship between the Institute and the executive branch of the U.S. government. WINEP's founder and director, Martin Indyk, went on to become Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of the Near East and South Asia Office at the National Security Council in the first Clinton White House. He then went on to become U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Many others from WINEP have gone on to senior positions in the executive branch, and numerous former foreign policymakers have made the reverse trip to WINEP. The Institute features such foreign policy luminaries as George P. Schulz, Alexander Haig, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and several other big names.(24) WINEP's total domination of the dialogue in Washington on the Middle East leaves little room for views that do not fall in line with those of the Institute, namely those that would challenge the steadfast support Israel depends on from the United States.
There are of course limits to this influence, as has been manifested in the past several years. In July of 2000, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced that Israel would not complete a 1997 deal that would have given China its first advanced airborne early-warning (AEW) capability. The cancellation of the sale of four Phalcon radar systems represents a $1 billion loss to Israel, not to mention a straining of its relations with the PRC. The cancellation was prompted by U.S. congressional threats to withhold aid to Israel if the AEW deal went forward.(25) However, the Phalcon case is the exception to the rule, which has been a general permissiveness (a few gripes from the Pentagon and CIA aside) when it comes to Israeli arms exports. The most significant contributing factor to this attitude is the simple fact that for a United States legislator to appear anti-Israel is a politically untenable position.
A final factor that would seem to preclude any substantive change in the relationship between the United States and Israel is the somewhat symbiotic nature of the American and Israeli armament industries. This is very clear from the Israeli side: the Israel armed forces are heavily dependent on the United States and American weaponry for their continued qualitative edge in the Middle East. The majority of Israel's fighting capability - outside of IDF personnel - is "American born". Absent assistance from the United States, Israel's military position in the Middle East would be drastically undermined, so much so that Israel's viability as a state - given the hostility of Israel's neighbors - would come into question. The picture is less stark from the American side, yet still significant.
As mentioned above, the inability of Israeli defense firms to compete with American and European aerospace defense firms has forced them to find their niche in the export market. One such niche they have found is supplying components to the U.S. military. For example, the United States buys some parts for the F-16 aircraft—an important and widely-used fighter jet in the American Air Force—from Israel.
Israel is also involved in a number of joint projects with the U.S. military, including the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system and the Tactical High Energy Laser anti-missile system. Even though the respective levels of dependence on one another are hugely asymmetric, the crucial fact is that Israel figures in American military procurement plans. The U.S. would not procure such items from a country that it had any reservations about at all in terms of reliability and stability of relations, meaning that the United States fully assumes that Israel will be a strong and dependable ally for years to come. The mutually beneficial nature of American-Israeli military procurement is a very strong sign of entrenchment in U.S.-Israel relations."
bits.de |
