Research

• Commentary
• publication date:2025/01/08

Why is American support for Israel so solid?

MEIJ Commentary No.8

Masaki Mizobuchi,

Associate Professor, Meiji Gakuin University

 

Introduction

The United States and Israel are often referred to as having a “Special Relationship.” The term was first used by President John F. Kennedy, who is said to have met with Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir in December 1962 and told her, “[t]he United States has special relations with Israel, as we have had and still have with Great Britain.”

Moreover, U.S.–Israeli security cooperation has been strengthened based on the principle of Qualitative Military Edge (QME). This mandates that the U.S. guarantee that its arms sales to other Middle Eastern countries will not undermine Israel’s military superiority—a long-standing tradition maintained by successive administrations since Lyndon Johnson’s administration. In 1981, then Secretary of State Alexander Haig testified before Congress: “A central aspect of US policy since the October 1973 war has been to ensure that Israel maintains a qualitative military edge.” This principle was formally documented in 2008 in the revised Arms Export Control Act.

Diplomatically, the United States has consistently defended Israel in the international arena. In the United Nations, in particular, the U.S. has vetoed resolutions that it considered an unjustified attack on Israel, preventing their passage at least 53 times since 1972 (as of 2023). Such unwavering U.S. diplomatic support has shielded Israel from international condemnation and sanctions with regard to its occupied territories policy and settlement expansion. Despite Israel’s repeated inhumane acts and violations of international law in Gaza since October 2023, the U.S. has consistently defended Israel and vetoed several UN Security Council resolutions calling for a humanitarian ceasefire.

Thus, U.S. support for Israel has remained consistently strong even through the current Gaza conflict (and despite harsh international criticism). The historical, religious, cultural, political, and strategic reasons behind this are multifaceted and have built a deep and enduring relationship between the two countries. This paper briefly summarizes the various arguments^[2] that have been discussed regarding these factors.

 

1.  Religious foundations and Christian Zionism

One of the strongest and most enduring factors in American support for Israel is the religious belief that the return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. This is especially true of Christian evangelicals, who are said to comprise roughly a quarter of American voters. In the simplest terms, evangelicals are “people who accept the words of the Bible as absolute truth and believe them verbatim,” interpret the New Testament’s Book of Revelation and Old Testament prophecies (especially Isaiah and Ezekiel) literally, and believe that the nation of Israel will play an important role in the end times. According to their eschatology, Jesus will return to rule the world for the last thousand years leading up to the end of time; before that, however, the Jewish people must rebuild the nation of Israel, which is nothing but the fulfillment of the prophecies presented in the Bible.

Prominent American evangelical leaders such as Billy Graham (1918–2018), Jerry Falwell (1933–2007), and John Hagee (1940–) have played a key role in popularizing this religious narrative. For example, Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), said, “I The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God,” citing Genesis (17:8), which contains the promise. Hagee clarified that U.S. foreign policy toward Israel is part of God’s plan. Hagee describes the Bible as “God’s foreign policy,” meaning that the US should support Israel unconditionally and that doing so is in line with God’s will. This religious perspective is not limited to evangelical leaders but permeates the political world more broadly. For example, Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) argued, on the Senate floor, that Israel has the right to own the land “because God said so.”

These religious beliefs are further reinforced by the broader cultural affinity that many Americans feel for Israel. The story of the Jewish people as told in the Old Testament resonates with American narratives of “settling,” “nation-building,” and “manifest destiny.” From the earliest days of American history, some Protestant settlers saw their new nation as the “new Israel” and believed that, like the ancient Israelites in Canaan, they were establishing a divinely ordained nation in the wilderness. As a result, some Americans saw the survival and prosperity of Israel as part of their religious identity and national mission.

 

2.  Historical similarity and identity

Partially overlapping with the religious foundations described above, but equally important, is the factor of the deep-seated historical sympathy that Americans—especially early settlers and political leaders—have expressed for the Jewish people. As early as the eighteenth century, American preachers and political thinkers drew parallels between America and the historical Israel (as described in the Bible). The founding of the United States has often been compared to the biblical exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, and the New World has been seen as a kind of “promised land.” Additionally, “Americans found the idea that they were God's new Israel so attractive partly because it helped justify their displacement of the Native American.”^[3] This identification with the self and others contributed to Americans and Jews forming special cultural bonds and solidarity long before the establishment of the present State of Israel.

When the State of Israel was founded in 1948, many Americans saw it as the culmination of a long struggle by the Jewish people for a homeland, much like America’s own struggle for independence from the British colonial rule. The pioneering Jewish settlers’ transformation of the arid land of Palestine into a prosperous nation resonated deeply with the American spirit of frontier expansion and independence. In fact, prominent American leaders, such as presidents Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman, expressed deep personal sympathy for the Zionist movement and actively supported the establishment of the State of Israel. Numerous members of Congress also expressed support for Zionism in the first half of the twentieth century. David Tull discusses this point as follows:

 

The hearings and the statements of support by members of Congress defies later statements about the political power and influence the Israel lobby could exert on American politicians. The Jewish electorate and political power are unlikely to have influenced Congress to support the Balfour Declaration and the joint Senate-House motion to establish a Jewish national home. Not only were the Jews a small minority within the US population but only a small percentage of them were Zionists or inclined to Zionism. The only way to explain the support of senators and representatives from Ohio, Delaware, Nebraska, or West Virginia for the Balfour Declaration is that they genuinely believed that the Jews deserved statehood. Congress members cited religion, values, and history as the reasons for their support for the Zionist cause, and it seems that, indeed, they meant it, as presidents did.^[4]

 

For many Americans, the return of the Jewish people to their homeland represented a triumph of perseverance and freedom. The story of Israel, a small nation fighting for its survival surrounded by hostile neighbors, reflected American ideals of freedom, the right to self-determination, and fortitude. In other words, American support for Israel was nothing more than “a way of legitimizing its own status as a country called to a unique destiny by God.”^[5] This cultural and historical identification further cemented the U.S.–Israeli relationship.

 

3.  The Holocaust and Guilt

The horrific memory of the Holocaust is also said to have played an important role in American support for Israel. The Holocaust shocked the world, thrusting the destination of anti-Semitism before the eyes of the world, and brought global awareness of the need for a safe homeland for the Jewish people. Like other Western nations, the United States experienced a deep sense of guilt for having done nothing to prevent the genocide of six million Jews during World War II.

American politicians, such as presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, felt a moral responsibility to express their horror at the Holocaust and support Jews seeking a safe homeland. This moral obligation was further reinforced by the discovery of Nazi concentration camps and the widespread documentation of atrocities against Jews. For many Americans, the Holocaust justified the creation of the State of Israel as a safe haven for Jews and made them keenly aware of America’s role in ensuring that such a tragedy would never happen again.

This sense of moral obligation was shared by future President Ronald Reagan and others. President Reagan stated that the Holocaust left America with a “moral responsibility” to ensure that Jews would never again face such a danger. President Jimmy Carter also referred to the lingering guilt of the Holocaust as a reason for America’s unwavering commitment to Israel’s security.

*

Reasons 1–3 are historical facts and leave little room to dispute them (that does not mean that we can immediately conclude that the United States must give its full support to Israel). However, the following reasons 4–5 are now being debated from various positions over their factual validity, and reason 6 is simply a domestic political reason for the U.S.

 

4.  Shared democratic values

An additional important reason for U.S. support for Israel is the shared commitment of both countries to democracy. Nevertheless, criticism of Israeli democracy also persists in the U.S. and abroad with regard to the issue of the rights of Arab citizens and the policy of the occupied territories. Still, detractors of this cause have often portrayed Israel as an “isolated island of democracy in a sea of dictatorship.” These shared democratic values make Israel an attractive ally for the United States, which has long advocated the global spread of freedom and democracy as the core of its foreign policy.

American foreign policy is based on two mutually intertwined pillars: religion and Enlightenment liberalism.^[6] Religion has given Americans a strong sense of self-consciousness, justifying their own activities as missionaries spreading the Enlightenment ideology of promoting liberal values, the idea that people are free to choose their form of government.^[7] Since its founding, Israel has regularly held free elections, maintained an independent judiciary, and guaranteed the rights of its citizens, including freedom of speech and of religion. For this reason, Israel has been a natural partner for the United States, which considers itself the “leader of the liberal world.” Indeed, U.S. presidents and political leaders frequently cite the factor of shared democratic values with Israel as a major reason for their support of Israel. For example, President Carter described Israel as the bridgehead of democracy in the Middle East, and President Reagan stressed that Israel’s continued existence is crucial to protect democratic values in the region.

The recognition that Israel is a democratic state fighting for survival against “autocratic” and “theocratic” regimes in the Middle East is also consistent with the broader American values of defending human rights, freedom, and democracy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed the point of shared values as follows: “In Israel’s story we see our own, and the story of all people who struggled for freedom and the right to chart their own destinies.”^[8] John Kerry, who succeeded her as Secretary of State, stated that every time he visited Israel, “I felt like I was visiting a branch of America’s family that had made their home in the desert of the Middle East.”^[9]

 

5.  Strategic geopolitical interests

In the volatile Middle East, Israel has long been viewed as a strategically important ally. Underlying this view is the fact that the United States needs a reliable partner in a region that has been plagued by decades of conflict, extremism, dictatorship, and instability. However, while this argument may have been persuasive during the Cold War, since the end of the Cold War—and especially today—the argument that Israel is a strategic burden rather than a strategic asset for the United States has prevailed.

First, let us review the arguments for Israel as a strategic asset for the United States. At the heart of this argument is military and intelligence cooperation. Israel’s geographic location places it at a pivotal point in the Middle East, which is a major advantage for U.S. military strategy. Additionally, Israel’s advanced missile defense systems and cybersecurity technology are important assets to the United States. Israel’s independently developed missile defense system, Iron Dome, is highly regarded for its on-the-field experience and contributes significantly to the U.S. defense system. Moreover, Israeli intelligence provides valuable information on forces hostile to the U.S., such as Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, and this intelligence sharing is an important pillar of U.S. Middle East strategy.

Moreover, Israel’s military power serves as one of the means by which the United States maintains its dominance in the Middle East and contains hostile powers. Israel has played a key role in countering Soviet influence during the Cold War and later in the fight against terrorism and Islamic extremism; further, since 2010, it has been a pivotal player in containing Iranian influence throughout the Middle East. Both Israel and the United States share the common goal of deterring Iran’s regional ambitions and nuclear program. Israel’s sabotage and cyberattacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities also align with U.S. interests. Israel’s strong military and stable presence in the region make it an important partner in such an American strategy that sets it apart from other unstable states. In particular, Israel’s democratic system provides a reliable foundation for long-term cooperation for the U.S., whereas most other Middle Eastern states are authoritarian regimes. Thus, the argument that Israel is an indispensable military partner for U.S. Middle East policy and that its presence strengthens U.S. regional influence has thus far had a certain persuasive force.

Conversely, a persistent argument that Israel is a strategic burden for the United States. In particular, it is often pointed out that U.S. support for Israel has led to growing anti-American sentiment in Arab countries and the Islamic world, which has damaged its image and influence. The U.S. has also been criticized for providing substantial military aid to Israel over the years and for showing thorough support for Israel in international forums, which have become major obstacles to resolving the Palestinian issue. The risk of Israel embarking on reckless military actions (against Lebanon or Iran, for example) and the U.S. getting involved in such actions has also been pointed out.

The United States is often forced to defend Israel in international forums such as the United Nations whenever it receives criticism from the international community for Israeli settlement expansion or military action against Gaza. This makes it difficult for the U.S. to gain multilateral cooperation on other international issues (such as nuclear nonproliferation and human rights issues)—which has also been the case during Israel’s military actions against Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran since October 2023.

Additionally, the economic burden that Israel places on the United States cannot be ignored. The U.S. provides billions of dollars in military aid to Israel each year—an amount that stands out among U.S. foreign aid. Some critics argue that this aid squeezes resources that should be directed to other areas and issues. Others believe that Israel receives too much U.S. aid because it is an advanced country with a wealthy economy and its own defense industry. Thus, a persistent criticism is that excessive aid to Israel is increasing the burden on U.S. economic interests.

 

6.  The Israel lobby and the influence of political donations

The Israel Lobby—which I will briefly define as “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively works to move U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction”^[10]—is a controversial issue in both academic and public debate. The claim that it is overly distorting has been debated from various perspectives. Those in support of this claim argue that pro-Israel lobby groups have a disproportionate influence over U.S. foreign policy and that, as a result, Israeli interests take precedence over broader U.S. strategic objectives. In contrast, those who oppose this argument argue that U.S. policy toward Israel is based on shared strategic and ideological interests and that the influence of the Israel lobby, while important, is only one of many factors shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East.

The most famous of the claims that the Israel lobby is distorting U.S. policy in the Middle East was developed in the 2007 book The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. According to them, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other pro-Israel groups exert excessive influence over American policymakers through lobbying, public relations campaigns, and financial contributions to political candidates, even when this conflicts with broader American interests, and that U.S. foreign policy is always tilted in favor of Israel. In particular, military and foreign aid and policy on Israeli–Palestinian issues are skewed in favor of Israel through the influence of lobby groups; this leads to policy decisions that are not consistent with America’s strategic or moral interests.

Kirk Beattie, who has meticulously tracked the Israel lobby’s activities in Washington, reports on its enormous influence and financial power as follows:

 

Interestingly and importantly, during the 2000—2012 time frame, “pro-Israel” PACs’ expenditures continued to outpace spending by lobbyists on such hot button issues as abortion policy and gun control. As regards abortion, from 1999-2012 “pro-choice” and “pro-life” expenditures averaged $1.11 million and $450,000 per electoral cycle, respectively, for an average total of $1.56 million per cycle.” “Gun rights” advocates contributed $1.6 million per electoral cycle on average, while “gun control” proponents averaged $100,000 over the same time period. So the combined contributions of proponents and exponents on each of the abortion policy and gun legislation issues averaged $1.56 and $1.70 million respectively per electoral cycle, while “pro-Israel” contributions alone averaged $2.87 million per cycle over this period.”

 

It is intriguing to note that in the 2072 election cycle, the results of which put in place the Congress that shot down the “gun control” aspirations of over 90 percent of the American public, “gun rights” advocates spent over $1.53 million backing federal candidates while, by comparison, pro-Israel PACs spent $2.98 million on federal candidates (a figure that is less than for each of the previous four election cycles).^[11]

 

Since October 7, 2023, AIPAC has consistently opposed the ceasefire; in the four months between October 7 and January 2024, AIPAC reportedly raised as much as $90 million.^[12] Moreover, senators who had been more supportive of Israel since the outbreak of the conflict received, on average, over $100,000 more in funding from the Israel lobby during the last election compared to those who were more supportive of Palestine.^[13] A resolution introduced in January 2024 by Senator Bernie Sanders (Democrat, Vermont) to provide aid to Israel on condition that it does not violate human rights or international law in its attack on Gaza was also opposed by AIPAC and others and received support from only 11 Senators.

However, the rebuttals to this argument have been many. They have emphasized that the Israel lobby, while powerful, does not “dominate” U.S. foreign policy. Lobbying is a normal political process in an American democracy. Like other interest groups, such as environmental groups and the defense industry, it pursues policies consistent with its own interests, merely advancing its own goals through political contributions, lobbying, and public relations. Moreover, these lobbying efforts reflect the support of American public opinion and political elites, with polls showing that most of the American public sympathizes with Israel and that support for Israel enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. From this perspective, it can be argued that the Israel lobby is successful because it is consistent with American domestic values and strategic interests.

It is also noted that U.S. policy toward Israel has not always followed the demands of the Israel lobby, the influence of which is limited. For example, Mearsheimer and Walt argued that the 2003 war in Iraq was “motivated at least in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.”^[14] However, the author questioned these claims, noting that the American Jewish community was sharply divided over the Iraq war regarding the merits of regime change and of military invasion as a means to achieve it.^[15] Additionally, Israel and the Israel lobby have consistently called, since the 1990s, for a preemptive U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, but such claims have never been acted upon. Israel and the Israel lobby also allowed the Barack Obama administration to pass the Iran Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA) in 2015, despite its staunch opposition. In other cases, since the 2000s, the U.S. has often adopted policies toward the Middle East that go against the wishes of Israel and the Israel lobby (such as the sale of high-performance weapons to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries). These examples show that U.S. policy toward Israel is based on broader geopolitical considerations that go beyond the influence of lobby groups.

 

Conclusion

As we have discussed, America’s generous support for Israel is the result of a complex and deeply intertwined set of religious, historical, cultural, political, and strategic factors. The religious beliefs of evangelical Christians, historical sympathy for the Jewish people, the trauma of the Holocaust, shared democratic values, strategic geopolitical interests in the Middle East, and the enormous influence of the Israel lobby all contribute to the special relationship between the US and Israel. The combination of these various factors makes U.S. support for Israel unwavering.

Furthermore, Israel’s strategic value to the U.S. has greatly improved since the Abrahamic Accords were signed in 2020, when the Arab states of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco normalized diplomatic relations with Israel. This makes it clear that U.S. support for Israel does not necessarily undermine American political influence in the Middle East. The fact that these Arab states have demonstrated a preference for real economic and security interests over the “Palestinian cause” has provided material support for the argument that Israel is a strategic asset for the US. However, these arguments were quickly deflated by Israel’s massive offensive, which could be called “barbaric,” after October 2023.

Nevertheless, in recent years, the younger generation, known as “Generation Z,” has begun to cast a critical eye on the U.S. foreign policy that unconditionally supports Israel. They have been the main force behind the “Black Lives Matter” movement, which has been advocating for the lives and dignity of Black people who have been historically discriminated against. The United States, in particular, has been harshly critical of the violence it has exercised and the oppression it has perpetrated. In a March 2023 Gallup poll, for the first time in more than two decades, the Democrats sympathizing with Palestine (49%) were more than those sympathizing with Israel (38%). The growing pro-Palestinian public opinion of Generation Z is also noted as an important factor in these changes.^[16]

Therefore, could the radicalization and rightward shift of Israel and the rise of Generation Z change U.S.–Israeli relations in the future? Probably not. America’s thorough support for Israel is not simply due to the financial power and influence of the Israel lobby, but it is a solid foundation intertwined with various factors such as history and ideology, as mentioned above. For many Americans, affirming Israel’s existence is synonymous with affirming their own nation, and support for Israel goes beyond secular interests, such as strategy and national interest, to become an ethical and religious obligation. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the current state of U.S.–Israeli relations will change, regardless of the damage it could inflict upon America’s international reputation and national interests.

 

 

Author Biography

Masaki Mizobuchi

Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Meiji Gakuin University.

 

＜ Previous Page | ↑