Complicating the “Israel Lobby” and America’s Support for Israel

The Senate confirmation hearing for Chuck Hagel has temporarily revived the discussion (I won’t call it a debate) about the so-called Israel lobby. Stephen M. Walt and John Mearsheimer’s 2007 The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy has become a rallying point for critics of America’s relationship with Israel and its apparently unshakeable pillar of support, the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). It was no doubt a controversial work, and was accused of anti-semitism in more than one instance. However, I think such an accusation is unfounded. A more reasonable review of Walt and Mearsheimer’s work and the facts that surround American support for Israel lead one to conclude that rather than anti-semitism, this view is founded on laziness.

We should not discount that AIPAC has quite a bit of sway; after all they spent roughly $2.7 million during election year 2012. That’s substantial sum of money, but it pales in comparison to other more lucrative motivations for Washington’s support for Israel. For fiscal year 2012, “despite tough fiscal times” the US pledged $3 billion in foreign military financing (FMF) to Israel. FMF effectively functions as a gift card acceptable at any of America’s domestic defense contractors.

Here is where the heavy hitters of political lobbyists really enter into play.

The Apache helicopter, named after a near-eradicated indigenous population, is used without any sense of irony by the Israeli military and is produced by Boeing who in 2012 contributed over $15 million to the American democratic process. The Apache is normally outfitted with Hellfire missiles that Israel employs in its policy of “targeted killings;” these Hellfire missiles are manufactured by Lockheed-Martin, who spent another $15 million on political lobbying in 2012. These two pillars of the “defense industry” are by no means alone, but if isolate just these two they collectively outspend AIPAC ten times over.

Military spending is certainly a key factor in the decisions of policy-makers. Reuters reports that representatives of the industry in question are saying that as many as 100 million jobs could be lost as a result of cuts in defense spending. Moreover, military spending is regarded as a form of stimulus for the manufacturing sector of the US economy.

In short, if we’re focusing on lobbying power as measured by money spent (the most sensible measurement considering the current state of campaign finance), surely we can admit the corporate ideology of the arms industry factors in far more than the political ideology of the “Israel lobby.” The arms manufacturers and their lobbyists, purely as a function of maximizing profits, do not influence politicians toward a pro-Israeli or anti-Palestinian stance. They influence politicians simply toward militarism and support for militarism under the familiar buzzwords of “security” and “stability.”

I am a staunch opponent of Israeli policy, but it’s simply dishonest to suggest that America’s relationship with Israel exists because, in Hagel’s words, “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people.”  No one talks about the strength of the Egyptian lobby or the Saudi lobby or any of the other contemptible allies that America supports with military assistance and sales; this is because the influence of the arms industry is endemic beyond the reach of relatively minor political action committees like AIPAC.

Follow me on facebook at http://www.facebook.com/ExpertActivistMiddleEast?ref=hl and on twitter at @Adam_Wes_S.