The Democratic National Convention has been packed with prominent speakers and musical interludes that all focus on unity and moving forward into a more hopeful future.
But this cheerfulness is shadowed by a split within the Democratic Party related to Israel’s war in Gaza. There have been calls by some delegates for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris to support a halt in US military aid to Israel.
While the pro-Palestinian protests surrounding the convention have been much smaller than some expected, Chicago police arrested at least 72 pro-Palestinian protesters on August 20, 2024. These activists are calling for a US arms embargo on Israel, which the Democratic Party’s new national platform does not include.
The Conversation US’s politics editor Amy Lieberman spoke with Dov Waxman, a scholar of Israel studies, to better understand what is behind the US’s relationship with Israel and the strategic reasons why an arms embargo is, at best, a remote possibility.
Do you think that Kamala Harris is likely to agree with the calls for an arms embargo on Israel?
I do not think she will agree with those calling for an arms embargo on Israel.
For one thing, as vice president and before that as a senator, Kamala Harris has consistently supported providing US military aid to Israel. This position is typical of most Democratic Party members, as well as most Republicans.
Opponents of US military aid to Israel often argue that this help is solely a function of domestic politics and reflects the power of the pro-Israel lobby, particularly AIPAC. I think that this view is myopic and exaggerates the power of the pro-Israel lobby.
It ignores the fact that the US has its own economic and strategic reasons for supplying that military aid. It is a US national interest, not simply a favor for Israel, and that’s why there is broad, bipartisan support for continuing this military aid.
Although an arms embargo is unrealistic, there are other things short of an arms embargo, like conditioning or restricting military aid, which are more realistic – and there is a growing debate among Democratic lawmakers over that.
What are some of the ways that US aid to Israel helps the US domestically?
When the US gives military aid to Israel, the Israeli government is not putting that money in its pocket. The vast majority of the money that the US allocates to Israel each year must be spent on American weapons. That is true, in general, for American military aid to other countries, such as Ukraine.
Those American weapons that Israel purchases are produced in factories across the US. So, many American lawmakers have an interest in sustaining that aid because that money ends up flowing into their own states and providing local jobs.
What has US aid to Israel historically been like, before the Gaza war?
Historically, Israel has received more US foreign aid than any other country. In total, the US has provided Israel with over US$300 billion, with this amount adjusted for inflation.
Initially, for the first decade after Israel’s establishment in 1948, the US provided Israel with only economic aid, but, starting in the 1960s during the Kennedy administration, it began providing military aid as well. The US now gives only military aid to Israel.
After Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War of 1967, when Israel demonstrated its ability to decisively defeat Soviet allies in the region, the US significantly increased its military aid to Israel. This was a turning point in many ways for the US-Israel relationship, because since then the US has seen Israel as a valuable ally.
Another major increase in US military aid to Israel occurred under the Nixon administration in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This is worth noting because Nixon was not a great friend of Jewish people. But he increased US aid to Israel because of its strategic interest to the US.
Since then, US military aid has continued to steadily increase over the years, and in the past year it has risen following Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attacks in Israel, and Israel’s subsequent invasion of Gaza.
I think the primary reason for this continuous military assistance to Israel, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, is that it serves US national interests.
How does US aid to Israel serve America’s national interests?
A militarily strong Israel helps the US counter their common enemies.
During the Cold War, Israel helped contain the spread of Soviet influence in the Middle East. For example, after Israel defeated Egypt in the 1967 and 1973 wars, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat defected from a Soviet alliance to ally with the US, ushering in a long period of American hegemony in the region.
After the Soviet threat receded after the Cold War, Israel’s strategic value to the US diminished. But it rose again following the 9/11 terrorist attacks because of Israel’s long experience in counterterrorism and its vaunted intelligence-gathering capabilities.
More recently, over the past decade or so, Israel has worked with the US to counter the expansion of Iranian influence in the region and to slow down Iran’s nuclear program. Although the two allies have disagreed over tactics – particularly over the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran – they both regard Iran’s growing power in the region as the greatest threat to regional stability, and they both want to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons. For the US, a militarily strong Israel is seen as necessary to prevent Iranian expansionism.
Israel not only has the most powerful military in the region; it is also the only long-standing democracy there – albeit a seriously flawed one, in my view. So, from the US’s perspective, Israel can help the US achieve its strategic goals in the region without the American military actually having to put boots on the ground and do so itself.
Israel is also perceived as a more reliable and less problematic ally than the US’s other major allies in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Ultimately, although Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and its war in Gaza have alienated and angered many Democrats, particularly progressives, most Democratic policymakers, including Harris, still believe that supporting Israel is in the interests of the US. And providing Israel with military aid is still seen as the best way for the United States to do that.
The real question is whether the US should exercise greater oversight or control over how American weaponry can be used.
Dov Waxman is the Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation professor of Israel studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
I’d add that calling Israel a “democracy” is both a misnomer and an excuse. Israel is a democracy, but not for the millions of people living under its military occupation. It is like apartheid South Africa – SA was a “democracy” too, for its citizens, but it just set up a system that prevented millions of exploited Africans from being citizens. Israeli apartheid is far more extreme than what South Africa did. Also, calling Israel a democracy is often used as a code for saying “they are like us and we owe them support because of religious and ethnic similarity.” That was certainly what was said openly until the 1980s and it is still often the meaning of the “democracy” invocation.
It’s a Herrenvolk Democracy
From wiki:
“Herrenvolk democracy is a nominally democratic form of government in which only a specific ethnic group has voting rights and the right to run for office, while other groups are disenfranchised.”
Waxman is correct that Harris will keep arming Israel but I think he is wrong about the reasons why. It really is primarily the Israel lobby and its extraordinary grip over American politics. During the Cold War, it was possible to argue that Israel had strategic value for the US. Today, it is not. US relations with the entire world, but especially the Middle East, would be much less complicated if it did not have to keep covering for Israel. Its relations with Iran could be much better if the Israel lobby and Israeli interests were not blocking that possibility. The diplomatic damage the US is taking because of its complicity with Israel in Gaza is enormous and certainly not in the US interest. It is time to just acknowledge that, on this issue, the counterproductive US policy is all about domestic politics.
REAL Middle East Game-Changer is RUSSIA.
Russia will provide more than enough military support to neutralize/eradicate Israel, including use of Russian military to COUNTER US military anywhere in Middle East. Checkmate US/Israel.
Verily the author speaks. However, in an election year any candidate not supportive of Israel must fear the power of AIPAC behind their opponent.
AIPAC is an agent of a foreign power and must be registered as such.