The real cost of the US-Israel “special relationship”
Established in 1948, the state of Israel has played an increasingly controversial role in American politics. While most discourse surrounding Israel regards land claims and human rights abuses in both Israel and neighboring Palestine, the overall emotion and complexity involved with arguably the world’s most controversial issue often drowns out an equally important discussion here in the U.S.: how heavily are we as a sovereign state involved in this conflict, and for what purpose?
Israel is one of 18 nations designated by the U.S. as a major non-NATO ally. Amongst these 18 countries, however, Israel is curiously treated with a level of public warmth undemonstrated towards other states. Presidents Kennedy and Carter gave this rapport an unofficial designation during their respective presidencies: the U.S. Israel “special relationship.” This partnership became an established fact rather than political position in Washington, and remains so decades later, despite public opinion beginning to sway.
But the reality is, the current status of this “special relationship” is irrational. The U.S.’ unequivocal support for Israel — often touted by Western governments and press as a strategic necessity — is actively degrading both American and Israeli long-term interests.
Given Reasoning for the Relationship
With massive checks being written to Israel every year, U.S. citizens must wonder what value Israel has provided in the past nearly eight decades that justifies its unique, “special” status. Biden has requested Congress to fork over more than $14 billion to Israel this year, while the U.S. has given over $158 billion (unadjusted for inflation) in the past, more than it has for any other country since World War Two. It’s not as if this money is in excess back home; it’s needed to support prisoner rehabilitation, fight environmental degradation, and further research diseases plaguing humanity, such as the pressing superbugs epidemic, amongst other things. Just last year, nearly 120,000 public school students lived homeless in New York City. If funding is too scarce to give these kids a home how is there enough to go halfway across the world?
The U.S. provides a number of reasons to its citizens and to the international community at large as to justify its spending on Israel. These arguments are provided in official statements, press releases, and federal webpages, and range from a need for international stability, shared democratic values, economic prosperity, loyalty to Israel, and regional security. The best way to scrutinize these arguments is to provide the official narratives and general discourse stated by the governments of both nations and their respective mainstream medias:
U.S. checks to Israel are taken as the cost of maintaining the status quo on the world stage. The U.S.’ position on Israel is a central component of how conflict, trade routes, and security in the Middle East plays out, and in order to ensure stability and prevent political unrest, things cannot change. The U.S. backed world order is seen by some as a moral strength for the rest of the globe, making the current state of affairs in Israel and Palestine a necessity to prevent global upheaval. The last time such upheaval occurred in the region was during the Arab Spring, spiking global oil prices and throwing entire supply chains into disarray.
As the “only democracy in the Middle East,'' Israel is often perceived as a natural favorite in the region for strategic partnership. Prominent politicians have made it clear that regardless of the domestic issues each country faces, a democratic link connects Israel and the United States, a link that goes deeper than self-interests. The idea of “shared democratic values” binding these two states is a very powerful and often cited argument, tapping into America’s patriotism and confirming their espoused championship of democracy and freedom.
In terms of more tangible benefits to the partnership, the $50.6 billion trade between both countries is also used as evidence of a productive relationship. While the U.S.’ $10.7 billion trade deficit is ignored in this conversation, the tens of billions of dollars in foreign direct investment (FDI) between both nations is always highlighted. The U.S. invests almost exactly four times as much in Israel as Israel does in the U.S., but there are massive numbers on both sides, which are used to justify the status quo. If the numbers are working out well as things are, why fix what’s not broken?
Politicians also argue that Israel is America’s “greatest ally in the Middle East,” making the U.S. loyal to a friend in a part of the world full of either half-friends or foes. If Middle Eastern leaders are fickle and problematic for the United States then it makes sense for Israel to be the favored country in the region. This once again ties into the argument of “shared democratic values”; the idea that the U.S. and Israel are genuinely friendly with one another for greater reasons than pure Realpolitik.
Finally, the most oft-cited reason for the U.S.’ unequivocal backing of Israel is common defense goals. The enemy of an enemy is a friend, so it’s logical for Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies and forces to team up when fighting Hezbollah, Hamas, radical terrorism, and Iran. As Former U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig said, “[Israel is] the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk.”
While these objectives sound noble on paper, they serve only as PR distractions from the uglier truths as to why the U.S. has bound itself so tightly to Israel. The argument to be made here is two-pronged: not only are each of the above arguments false, but the officials and agencies disseminating these falsehoods are aware that the narrative they push goes against the best interests of those they’re supposed to serve.
Prong One: Challenging Current Discourse:
National Security
The U.S.-Israel partnership is always explained away via the mutual national security interests the countries share. Israeli violations of human rights, however, and America’s complicity in them, have spurred anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments throughout the world. This anger has manifested itself not only in obvious instances of violence against Israel, but also against the United States. While it is not often considered in the analysis of American policy in the Middle East, U.S. positions have not only lost it allies sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but gained it enemies: Al-Qaeda cited U.S. support for Israel as a motivating factor for their 9/11 attacks, a sentiment shared by many violent groups who’ve targeted American tourists across the globe. Due to the world's anger towards Israel's inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, American and Israeli innocents are punished in the stead of their governments. Accountability remains with terrorist groups, and such attacks can never be justified, but it is the duty of the U.S. and Israel to take any precautions whatsoever in order to ensure the safety of their citizens.
This is not where the fallacy ends, however, as policy hawks around the country continue to designate Iran and its proxies as common enemies of the Israeli and American people, therefore making America and Israel allies against a shared foe. This too, does not justify the “special relationship” both countries currently enjoy. Even when killing Ayman al-Zawhiri, a mastermind behind 9-11 and a worse enemy to the United States than Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah or the Houthis will ever be, there was no collateral damage. U.S. President Obama, who is decried for killing innocents across the world, constructed protocols in the military to prevent civilian casualties. In contrast, Israel dropped the same amount of bombs in the Gaza Strip in one week as the U.S. did in all of Afghanistan after one year of war. That’s one week versus one month, and a whole country compared to a tiny, densely populated strip of land. The word “strip” is even in the name. The United States is more brutal to the enemies of Israel (and those unfortunate enough to be within miles radii of them) than to those it is at active war with. Hamas does not target the United States homeland; why is it more vicious to terrorists across the world than to terrorists who attacked its own soil? This disparity in force is not only illogical, but it fuels radical propaganda citing brutal usage of force as a reason why the youth should pick up arms against the West.
Loyalty
Another argument is that the U.S. must back Israel out of loyalty. As our “greatest ally in the Middle East'' the United States cannot afford anything but a “special relationship” with Israel. The argument is that the intangible return on investment (ROI) on American aid to Israel lies within the value of gaining a geostrategic ally in a region full of awkward alliances. This too, is a flawed premise. The Middle East is not some dangerous region of foes; the U.S. has many friends in the area with common enemies. Additionally, Israel is America’s strongest ally in the Middle East because America has alienated the rest of the region through its unwavering support of Israel. Even still, America can find allies in Qatar, Jordan, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and other neighboring nations. The entire argument has itself backwards, and only points to a reason why Israel has taken away value from the U.S.
Economic Prosperity
A third argument, as directly made by the Department of State, is that economic prosperity is a driving force behind the U.S.-Israel “special relationship.” On the one hand, trade between both countries is worth $50 billion in goods and services, and the U.S. serves as Israel’s number one trading partner. On the other hand, Israel reports tens of billions of dollars in defense spending per year, an unusually high amount for a nation of its size. This is nothing, however, to the fiscal price America pays for its role in legitimizing Israeli violence. Brown University has found that 20 years of post-9/11 wars cost the U.S. around 8 trillion dollars and more than 900,000 lives, doing no favors to the U.S.’ wallet or global image. As stated above, there's a connection between the horrific 9/11 attacks and the U.S.-Israel "special relationship,” robbing taxpayers in both countries of domestic programs that could have been.
This spending is not just a massive fumble of priorities in the past. Even if you dispute the relation between post-9/11 spending in the Middle East and U.S.-Israel relations, it doesn’t erase the fact that Biden is currently asking for a gargantuan $106 billion international spending package, $14.3 billion of which is to be spent on the state of Israel. As if this isn’t enough support for one of the most militarily powerful countries in the world, President Obama signed a $38 billion ten year spending deal with Israel in his 2016 lame duck session. This much spending easily cancels out the benefits of the $50 billion in trade between the two countries, much of which could exist without any sort of “special relationship.”
Unlike Israel, which at best serves a role in U.S. policy in one region of the world, Chinese programs like the Belts and Roads Initiative (BRI) are utterly damning to American interests across the entire planet. Ironically enough, the money China is estimated to eventually invest in its global prestige is also around 8 trillion dollars. Would an international spending package not be better fitted to embrace a positive competition of building the world up rather than weakening oneself to fund war crimes for another nation? If none of the above examples of alternative spending possibilities calls the intelligence of so-called “experts” who write these checks into question then juxtapose the BRI with the devastation across the Middle East. While the BRI is often called out for debt-trapping nations, countries “entrapping” themselves clearly seem to see the pros outweigh the cons, unlike U.S. support for Israel.
The economic prosperity of both Israel and the United States is clearly damaged by this relationship beyond a doubt in the form of the India-Middle-East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEEC). IMEEEC was carefully planned and constructed by Western/Western allied governments — particularly the U.S. — for years, but it has now been derailed by the violence of last month. Less than a month before the October 7th Hamas attacks, the White House issued a Fact Sheet, stating that
“Through the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, we aim to usher in a new era of connectivity with a railway, linked through ports connecting Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Looking to the future, the United States underscores our unwavering commitment to pursuing transformative regional investments and working to build out this corridor together with our partners. These investments are a gateway to our future and underpin our shared vision of an open, secure, and prosperous future.”
Now, the status of IMEEEC is being questioned by officials in India and across the region. IMEEEC was a clear sign that the United States of America is not “a,” but still “the” global powerhouse in the world. It dwarfed China’s ideologically parallel China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in length, but now its symbolism is blunted by pure contradiction of U.S. actions with U.S. long term interests. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, Hamas’ actions “did not happen in a vacuum.” Hamas is to be held responsible for the atrocities it committed, but America and Israel’s unique partnership spurred dangerous consequences for not just their citizens, but their economic interests.
Shared Democratic Values
It’s interesting for the Department of State to note a commitment to democracy from both nations, as the U.S. alone has deposed democratically elected governments all over the world: Iran in 1953, South Vietnam in 1963, Chile in 1973, and Nicaragua in the 1980s, to name a few. Israel, too, has shown little care for international democracy, as it openly helped fund and create Hamas in a clear attempt to weaken the internationally recognized Palestinian Liberation Organization and to prevent a government capable of representing the Palestinian people from ever existing. This is not a story of the past; Netanyahu is facing criticism from even the Times of Israel for attempting to pit Hamas against the Palestinian Authority in 2019, thereby “prevent[ing] Abbas — or anyone else in the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank government — from advancing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.” Such a move is the antithesis of democracy; it’s a direct action intended to minimize the self-determination of citizens. Even on the world stage, the U.S. and Israel benefit from undemocratic UN Security Council vetos, which have been used to veto 34 UNSC draft resolutions. These draft resolutions have condemned “the use of any excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force by the Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians” and called for “lasting, comprehensive peace” with “two democratic States, Israel and Palestine,” as well as “humanitarian pauses” in combat. A rule of a tiny, powerful minority over a marginalized majority is undemocratic, to say the least.
International Stability and Maintaining the Current World Order
A fifth argument, still, is that the U.S. backs Israel to back its global supremacy and world order, thereby maintaining the status quo and upholding international stability. As proven by countless U.N. General Assembly votes, however, the majority of the world recognizes Israel’s violations of international law and human rights, as reported by human rights groups in Israel and around the globe. The blockade of food, water, medicine, and electricity, the subsequent powering down of hospitals, and the use of white phosphorus have outraged a supermajority of the planet. These atrocities infuriate many who have felt similar forms of oppression and apathy across the globe. It’s more than easy for those in developing nations to feel empathy for the situation the Palestinians are in. Even South Africa — Israel’s largest trading partner in the African continent — has harshly condemned the treatment of those in Gaza, and even gone as far as to accuse Israel of genocide in the International Court of Justice. The court has already stated such accusations are "plausible," a humiliating conclusion for Israel this early in the legal process.
Instead of protecting America’s privileged status on the world stage, its unwavering support for Israel has left moral supremacy to be picked up by America’s geostrategic enemies, the biggest threats to said privileged status being Russia and China. By taking a stance against nearly the rest of the world, the U.S. provides opportunities for its enemies to ostracize it by getting closer to countries sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. While some may argue America doesn’t need the world’s respect and moral authority so long as it remains the only superpower, the problem is exactly that: so long as it remains the only superpower. Whether or not one stands for the current world order is irrelevant; this parroted argument of policy hawks has itself inside out. The special relationship doesn’t empower either country internationally, it only ostracizes them and hurts U.S. global dominance and Israel’s international image.
Prong Two: How is this Possible?
While the arguments to maintain the status quo make sense on a surface level, they begin to disintegrate under harsh scrutiny. Why are U.S. agencies avoiding said scrutiny? The frightening truth is, the U.S. runs on interns, many of whom come right out of university. These interns are not only taught mainstream, groupthink foreign policy beliefs, but they’re also swept up in the various governmental bureaucracies who further said groupthink. Even John Bolton, an insider in the fields of U.S. security and state, heavily criticizes the hive mindedness of U.S. foreign policy intellectuals, and that’s not even considering the military industrial complex’s (MIC) control of U.S. institutions, or political forces, such as AIPAC.
Bureaucracy and Bigotry
The term “bureaucracy” carries negative connotations, and for good reason. Such agencies and departments are known to be slow, inefficient, tedious, and most importantly, old-fashioned. The bureaucracies of State, Treasury, and Defense are each still tainted with old, outdated views, especially towards the Middle East. America’s own generals have said its actions in the Middle East are Cold War era like. One of these anachronistic themes seems to be a general disdain for non-Americans/Europeans, as well as an overall Islamophobia. There are countless stories of civilians being treated as less than across the Muslim world, most famously in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, while similar crimes committed against caucasian victims are highlighted as unspeakably atrocious. U.S. agencies created a 5-year plan to invade 7 Muslim nations, yet as Jon Stewart recently pointed out, they still have the audacity to speak fiercely on democracy and resisting occupation in Ukraine. CBS reporter Charlie D'agata portrayed this hypocrisy perfectly while reporting on Ukraine, when he said, "But this isn't a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades ... this is a relatively civilized, relatively European … city where you wouldn't expect that or hope that it's going to happen." D’agata isn’t a government official, but he’s a part of a journalistic system that upholds this racism. State and Defense issue opinions that are then repeated in the press, making the press complicit in promoting a single, racist/islamophobic narrative.
In Iraq, a senior officer in the British forces said American forces were, “[full of] institutional racism, moral righteousness, misplaced optimism, and … ill-suited to engage in counter-insurgency operations.” He even said they were “weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, [and] a predisposition to offensive operations,” a humiliating remark coming from a supposed ally. Even Guantanamo Bay is undoubtedly a symbol of American islamophobia. The despicable detention center was born out of a fear of Muslims so strong it saw people, many of whom were wrongly accused, tortured day and night. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has slammed “hideous and blatant islamophobia” in the U.S. military, and denounced a trend of “anti-Muslim hatred” it has repeatedly witnessed. While impacting a slightly different part of the world, Henry Kissinger’s racism towards South-Asians was counter-intuitive to U.S. interests in the region, yet his “brilliance” was and is lauded by policy wonks across the country, much like its legacy is now in the Middle East.
These examples are all part of a greater trend of mainstream policy intellectuals doing an excellent job rebranding cruelty with coolness. Being cold, unempathetic, and heartless is seen as an unfortunate yet necessary trait for leadership, and characters in books and movies with such a persona are presented as “badass.” There is nothing intellectually stimulating about apathy, yet sophomoric security and diplomacy advisors have subscribed to “realism” and “deterrence”; the ideas that you must demonstrate overwhelming brute force to beat down resistance. If civilians of color are harmed in the process, one is simply being realistic, and any who argue against it are bleeding-heart, anti-patriotic, ignorant fools. As demonstrated by the arguments in prong one, these beliefs are rooted in arrogance — which in extremity is hate and contempt — above reason.
Today, the recent example of Stuart Seldowitz makes this point impossible to deny. Seldowitz, a hateful man who harassed a food truck vendor and said 4,000 dead Palestinian children was “not enough” once served not only as the acting director for the National Security Council’s South Asia Directorate, but even as a member of the U.S. State Department’s Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs. If this is how Mr. Seldowitz acts in public one can only imagine the horror he wreaked with diplomats behind closed doors. Seldowtiz admitted himself that he served under Republican and Democratic administrations, damning the whole system instead of just one party. The hatred old school bureaucracies hold for Arabs and Muslims is intense, and it remains a constant in American agencies.
The Military Industrial Complex
This hatred is a cause for the Israel-U.S. “special relationship” in its own right, but the existence of this hatred cannot be blamed solely on groupthink; it is also in the primary interest of the Military Industrial Complex. Every bomb Israel drops, every Islamic nation the U.S. hatefully invades means money in the pockets of defense corporations. In other words, hate and bigotry are profitable. CNBC reported iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF spiking 4.5% with Northrop Grumman stock prices rising by 11% right after the Department of Defense made a statement regarding streamlining weapons sales to Israel following the October 7th attacks. The U.S. aid given to Israel, the money at the heart of this issue, isn’t given out of a desire to protect and defend. It’s given because that money is spent right back on U.S. weapons, completing a loop that leaves out the American and Israeli people but benefits their respective leaders. If the MIC gains money and Israel gains free weaponry — and a massive weapons market in its own right — whenever there’s conflict, leaders on both sides are incentivized to inflame conflict even if it means their citizens are harmed in the process. This is one of the only logical explanations for a very illogical relationship.
As reported by The Guardian, when discussing Biden’s requested international spending package, Krisstine Liwag, Morgan Stanley’s head of aerospace and defense equity research, asked, “how much of this opportunity is addressable to the company and if the dollars are appropriated, when would be the earliest you could see this convert to revenue?” The White House’s response to the crisis in the Middle East was seen as an opportunity, making crisis an ideal situation for leaders. As stated above, the national security argument has itself inverted as the existing relationship only compounds security threats instead of resolving them. Now it’s clear why U.S. officials willingly perpetuate this paradox.
A key characteristic of Israel and America’s alliance is Israel’s permission to use 26% of military aid on domestic weapons manufacturing, which is a privilege other countries do not enjoy. Typically all military aid must be spent on U.S. markets. Of course, the U.S. makes sure Israel cannot manufacture certain equipment it needs to keep Israel dependent on it, such as fighter jets and heavy weaponry, but this special privilege is still unique. This special status doesn’t just stem from goodwill, however: The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network has stated,
“In the 1970s, Israel armed the brutal military regime of the Argentinian Junta that imposed seven years of state terrorism on the population, including the torture and “disappearance” of an estimated 22,000−30,000 left-wing activists, trade unionists, students, journalists and other alleged anti-regime civilians.”
These are U.S. funded dictatorships, but Israel is being used to wash away U.S. complicity in the oppression, akin to how money is “cleaned” while money laundering.
Aid to Israel also means profit for the Israeli manufacturing sector. In 2019, Haaretz reported, “Israel’s defense-related exports in 2017 totaled $9.2 billion, an all-time record and whooping 40% increase over 2016 – when defense-related transactions totaled $6.5 billion.”
The interests of politicians and business leaders in Israel and the U.S. are completely misaligned from that of their constituents and fellow citizens. This contrast actively threatens the lives and wallets of innocent Americans and Israelis, and must be continuously highlighted and put to an end. The U.S.-Israel “special relationship” exists to empower hatred and greed, and not only is useless, but even harmful to the people of both countries who have minute influence over the secret intentions and actions of their respective countries.
Written by Ali Sabir
