pro-Israel Lobby Research Articles

The Future of US–Israeli Relations

The special relationship between the United States and Israel has been built on three pillars: shared strategic interests, the resonance of Israel in American political culture and the influence of the pro-Israel lobby. While the strategic pillar has been the most controversial, as many in Washington have viewed Israel as a strategic liability, the dramatic improvement in relations between Israel and America’s Gulf Arab partners has diminished this concern. But the once strong cultural and domestic political pillars are now under strain. In the wake of a sharp decline in sympathy for Israel within the Democratic Party, bipartisan support for Israel is now in doubt. The new Israeli government has the potential to arrest and reverse this decline. Without progress towards a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, however, the challenge will remain.

The U.S. Assistance to the MENA Arab Countries under the Trump Administration: The Logic of a Diff erentiated Approach

This paper identifi es and explains key changes in the U.S. aid policies towards Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) under Donald Trump. It seeks to validate two widespread arguments — the one about the current administration’s revision of pivotal principles of providing foreign assistance, and the other one — about an accelerated disengagement of the United States from the MENA region since 2017. The paper consists of four sections. The fi rst section explores the transformation of the U.S. strategic thinking and regional context under the Trump administration and then posits fi ve hypotheses about possible changes in the volume and composition of the U.S. assistance to the MENA region (in comparison with the fi nal two years of the Obama administration), as well as the diff erences in the executive branch and the Congress’s positions. The second section explains particularities of the statistical data and the methods of its exploration, the third section presents the results of hypothesis testing using aggregated data on aid fl ows to the region, and the fi nal section explains these results, sometimes unexpected, using the data disaggregated by country. Three of fi ve hypotheses proved wrong based on the aggregate data. First, the Trump administration did not cut assistance to the MENA more substantially than to other regions of the globe. Second, it did not ringfence aid accounts which helped yield direct dividends to the U.S. businesses. Third, the Republican Congress was clearly less willing to support the executive’s aid chocies under a new Republican President than during the last years of a Democrat Barack Obama’s second term. Only two hypotheses proved correct — one about a prioritization of security and military assistance under Donald Trump and the other one — about disproportionate cuts of democracy promotion assistance. Such an unexpected result calls for refi ning both aforementioned arguments and taking into account the dissimilarities in the dynamics of assistance to diff erent countries. The United States tends to practice a diff erentiated approach in dealing with two largest Arab aid recipients (Egypt and Jordan) and with other Arab countries. The assistance to Cairo and Amman is ringfenced and protected, while aid to other recipients, including security assistance and FMF grants, is prone to quite drastic cuts. This diff erentiation is explained by the fact that cooperation with Egypt and Jordan rests not only on more solid strategic foundations but also on a strong support within the United States — both from the defense contractors interested in large export contracts and from an infl uential pro-Israel lobby. The U.S. will not abandon this highly diff erentiated approach after the 2020 elections but the structure of assistance to the MENA region might undergo quite a dramatic transformation.

Реалізація технологій зовнішньої політики Ізраїлю через проізраїльське лобі у США

Israeli-American relations are based on common democratic values. The pro-Israel lobby is considered one of the most powerful, well-funded, and has ties to American politicians it supports during the election campaign. But lobbyists are faced with the task of obtaining pro-Israel support in important issues for the Jewish state: security, the status of Jewish settlements, Iran’s nuclear program, financial support under the «Memorandum of understanding on military assistance» and improving relations with the Arab world through the mediation of the United States. Since the lobby consists of various organizations and groups, there are certain contradictions in views between them. Special attention is paid to the implementation of the foreign policy of the Jewish state by AIPAC and J-Street organizations, as the largest and most influential in the United States. The technologies of Israel’s foreign policy through lobbying pro-Israel groups in the United States are: financial support for congressmen and senators, organizing trips to the Jewish state, initiating and holding discussions of problems in Congress and the Senate, organizing annual congresses with the participation of American and Israeli officials.

His Landand the Origins of the Jewish-Evangelical Israel Lobby

The 1970 release ofHis Land, a religious documentary about Israel produced by Billy Graham's film studio, World Wide Pictures, took the evangelical world by storm. It was shown to hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of churchgoers and encapsulated the mix of prophecy beliefs and cultural arguments that cohered a decade later into the Christian Zionist movement—a major component of the religious right. Surprisingly, American evangelicals were not the only fans ofHis Land. American Jews, led by the American Jewish Committee(AJC), helped make the film an international success. AJC officials organized ecumenical screenings and kept detailed records of the film's reception, praising it as “an authentic interpretation” that “strengthen[s] the current interreligious discussion on the Middle East question.” By 1971, the AJC was showing this unabashedly evangelical film to Jewish audiences in synagogues and community centers. Through reconstructing His Land's production and reception, this article provides a new interpretation of the origins of bipartisan, Jewish and evangelical support for Israel in the late-twentieth century. It recasts the rise of a Jewish-evangelical pro-Israel lobby as an important religious episode to understanding the rise of the religious right and the continuing importance of confessional and theological identity even in the era of the “culture wars.”

The Pro-Israel Lobby in Europe: The Politics of Religion and Christian Zionism in the European Union, written by Elvira King

The Pro-Israel Lobby in Europe: The Politics of Religion and Christian Zionism in the European Union, written by Elvira King

Wpływ diasporalnych grup nacisku politycznego na przebieg wyborów federalnych w Stanach Zjednoczonych na przykładzie „lobby pro-izraelskiego”

Main purpose of this paper is to: 1) define the overall role of diaspora interest groups in American political system, and 2) assess their real impact on the course of the federal elections in the United States. The analysis has been narrowed to Jewish organizations commonly referred as „pro-Israel lobby” and their political activity. Author described main tools and mechanisms used by Jewish pressure groups to exert influence on democratic institutions in the US, in order to pursue their ethnic interests.

The Influence of the European Friends of Israel on the Members of the European Parliament

This article investigates how and why the European Friends of Israel, the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in Brussels, has worked to influence members of the European Parliament. It puts that the European Friends of Israel's lobbying activities have composed of arranging meetings with senior Israeli politicians and bureaucrats, organizing both policy and public conferences, taking policy initiatives and organizing trips for missions. Within the framework of these activities, the European Friends of Israel has aimed to influence the parliamentarians to take decisions in line with Israel's security interests, such as over Iran's nuclear program or Hamas, and ensure their support for some Israeli policies criticized by the European Union, like the settlements. Given its financial power and well-organized structure, it can be expected that the European Friends of Israel, which is still a relatively new organization, will become more effective in lobbying in defense of Israeli interests.

Israel in Contemporary Evangelical Christian Millennial Thought

AbstractIsrael and the Jewish people play a central role in the millennial thought of evangelical Christians. Drawing on older Christian messianic elements, as well as introducing new concepts, evangelicals have looked upon the Jews as historical Israel and at Palestine as ground zero of End-Times millennial events. Beginning in the nineteenth century, evangelicals have become actively involved in attempts to build a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine. They have looked upon the building of a Jewish state as a “sign of the time,” an indication that the current era is ending and the messianic events are about to occur. Especially in the aftermath of the 1967 war, evangelicals have become ardent supporters of Israel, turning in effect into a pro-Israel lobby in Washington and, at times, in other capitals too. Although evangelical Christians are engaged in extensive missionary work among Jews, an unprecedented cooperation has developed between groups of evangelicals and Orthodox-nationalist Jews. Among the mutual projects is the attempt to build the Temple in Jerusalem in preparation for the events preceding the arrival of the Messiah to earth.

Value Judgment: Why Do Americans Support Israel?

Many theories purport to explain American support for Israel, from strategic considerations to ideological affinity to a strong pro-Israel lobby that has captured Congress. This article argues that domestic politics play a large role not due to the influence of a lobby, but through voter preferences translating into official support. First, the paper documents high levels of public affinity for Israel and demonstrates that policy toward Israel is driven primarily by public opinion rather than by an Israel lobby. Second, it uses five case studies to demonstrate that public support for Israel is based on ideological, rather than strategic, grounds. Finally, it uses these conclusions to make some observations about the future of American support for Israel.

Nixon and Israel: forging a conservative partnership

Nixon and Israel: Forging a Conservative Partnership, by Noam Kochavi. New York: State University of New York Press, 2009. 146 pp. $55.00. Noam Kochavi is a lecturer at the Department of International Relations at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He specializes in twentieth-century diplomatic history, with a focus on the diplomatic history of the United States. This book by Kochavi is in essence a collection of three of his articles, which he published in different journals in recent years. Unlike his predecessors, Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, Richard Nixon owed nothing politically to the pro-Israel lobby or to Israel, since in the November 1968 elections he received the support of only 15% of the American Jewish vote. Yet Nixon ended up being the most Israel-friendly president to date. Military and economic aid to Israel, as well the political backing it has enjoyed, all increased significandy during his term in office, and the special relations between Washington and Jerusalem, based on common interests both in the Middle East and globally, were forged. Kochavi's book is based on U.S. and Israeli documents declassified in recent years. The first chapter of his book surveys the Nixon administration's attitude towards Israel in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict as well as the attempts made by the State Department at that time to forge a settlement of the conflict. Nixon and his influential National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, were very skeptical of the State Department's chances of success and therefore failed to back State Department efforts to promote a settlement of the conflict between Israel and Egypt. In fact, Nixon and Kissinger actively worked to undermine these efforts, for example in the case of the December 1969 Rogers Plan. Kochavi rightly claims that the relationships between Washington and Jerusalem suffered from mutual suspicion up until the crisis in Jordan in September 1970. President Nixon, who was more than slightly antisemitic, albeit not overtly so, believed that American Jews put Israel's interests before the interests of the United States; he also resented their traditional support of the Democratic Party. In addition, Nixon feared that broadening U.S. military and economic aid to Israel would strongly hinder American interests in the Middle East, especially in those countries of the region that were friendly to the U.S., such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Israel also treated the Nixon Administration, especially the State Department, suspiciously at the time and feared that Washington intended to coerce it into signing a forced agreement with Egypt, in which Israel would have to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula without first reaching an agreement that would protect its interests. Kochavi is also quite correct in suggesting that the period between September 1970 and November 1971 was an important turning point in Nixon's attitude towards Israel, in which he realized not only that Israel could block Soviet attempts to increase its presence in the Middle East, such as in the case of the Syrian military invasion into Jordan, but also that every settlement in which Israel would give back the territories it had occupied in 1967 would strengthen the USSR's standing in the region. Nixon therefore avoided pressuring Israel to move the peace process forward up to the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War (pp. 17-21). According to Kochavi, the mutual trust and appreciation that developed between Nixon and Kissinger on the one hand and Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Yitzhak Rabin, on the other, had a significant influence on improving Israeli-U.S. relations. The Israeli government, and especially Rabin, contrary to the usual protocol, openly supported Nixon in his 1972 election campaign against Democratic candidate George McGovern. …

The Israel Lobbies: A Survey of the Pro-Israel Community in the United States

The influence of the pro-Israel lobby in US foreign policymaking toward the Middle East has been a subject of great interest and fierce controversy in recent years. Yet, despite being the object of a massive amount of critical scrutiny, the pro-Israel lobby remains poorly understood. All too often it is depicted as a highly organized, cohesive political actor pursuing an agenda in line with, and even determined by, Israel's right-wing Likud party. By undertaking a detailed empirical survey of the pro-Israel community in the United States, this article shows that such a view is grossly inaccurate. The pro-Israel community is neither monolithic nor a unitary actor. It is fragmented into a number of different groups, many of which disagree sharply over their understanding of Israel's real interests. In lobbying the US government for what they believe is in Israel's interests, therefore, the pro-Israel community rarely, if ever, speaks with a single voice.

Is the Pro-Israel Lobby a Block on Reaching a Comprehensive Peace Settlement in the Middle East?

Contrary to many claims, the 'pro-Israel' factor is not the dominant constraint on any US effort to impose a comprehensive peace settlement. Nor did the pro-Israel lobby play a decisive role in the failure to reach a comprehensive peace in the 1990s. The most significant effect of the pro-Israel factor in the United States is to give Israel the benefit of the doubt by putting the onus on the Arab side to demonstrate its sincerity concerning peace. When Arab leaders have done this, they have greatly reduced the lobby's ability to constrain US diplomacy. However, the greatest constraint on America relates to the balance of interests between the United States and the parties to the conflict themselves. For the parties the details of any agreement are of much greater importance than they are for the United States, hence they are willing to pay greater costs than the latter is willing to impose on any confrontation. Consequently, under most conceivable circumstances the United States cannot impose a comprehensive settlement.

Introduction

Pro-Israel advocacy in the United States has come under a great deal of critical scrutiny in recent years. Denunciations of the excessive influence of the “Israel Lobby” on US foreign policymaking toward the Middle East, allegations of espionage leveled against high-ranking employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and arguments over whether pro-Israel organizations adequately represent American Jewish opinion have all served to put the pro-Israel lobby in the public spotlight.

The 2009 Israeli Election: A Bump in the Road to Peace?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Gilead Sher, interview with author, December 8, 2008 (lawyer, chief of staff and policy coordinator for former prime minister Ehud Barak, and key figure Meretz). 2. It was not just a question of the number of rockets fired but also of their increasing range. For an authoritative analysis of the war see Anthony H. Cordesman, “The ‘Gaza War’: A Strategic Analysis” (Washington, D.C.: CSIS, February 2, 2009), http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,5250/. 3. Yossi Alpher, “Too Early For Despair,” Bitterlemons.org, edition 7, February 16, 2009, http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl160211ed7.html#isr1. 4. Natasha Mozgovaya, “Obama: We Will Aggressively Seek Lasting Middle East Peace,” Haaretz, January 23, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057919.html. 5. Yuval Karni and Itamar Eichner, “Livni: Electing Netanyahu Will lead to a Rift with U.S.,” Yedioth Ahronoth, January 25, 2009, 2. 6. For a discussion of the renewed calls for electoral reform, see Amnon Rubinstein, “Plenty of Brakes But No Engines,” Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2009, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304810588&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull; Moshe Arens, “The Electoral System and the Voter,” Haaretz, February 10, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1062722.html; Shlomo Avineri, “The Good and the Bad of the System,” Haaretz, February 19, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1065365.html. 7. Alpher, “Too Early For Despair.” 8. The results were: Kadima 28; Likud 27; Yisrael Beitenu 15; Labour 13; Shas 11; United Torah Judaism 5; UAL Ta'al 4; National Union 4; Hadash 4; Meretz 3; Balad 3; Jewish Home 3. See Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 10, 2009, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern+History/Historic+Events/Elections_in_Israel_February_2009. 9. The 32nd government of Israel was sworn in by a majority of 69 to 45 votes. Five of the Labour members of the Knesset abstained. Initial posts were distributed in the government as follows: Likud 15; Labour 5; Yisrael Beitenu 5; Shas 5. See “Netanyahu Government/Who's Who in the New Cabinet,” Haaretz, April 1, 2009, http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1075505.html. 10. Dana Weiler-Polak, “Record 20,072 Israelis Filed for Unemployment in March,” Haaretz, April 6, 2009, http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076532.html. 11. “Israel's Netanyahu Government, the Annapolis Process and a ‘Two-State Solution,’” Beyond Images Web site, Briefing 238, April 5, 2009, http://www.beyondimages.info/docs/B238.doc. 12. Avigdor Lieberman, speech, Jerusalem, Israel, April 1, 2009, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Foreign_Minister/Speeches/Statement_by_incoming_FM_Avigdor_Liberman_1-Apr-2009.htm. 13. “Obama's Remarks to Turkish Parliament,” Washington Wire: Wall Street Journal Blogs, April 6, 2009, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/04/06/obamas-remarks-to-turkish-parliament/. 14. See “Abbas Lays Down Terms for Renewing Peace Talks,” Haaretz, April 5, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1076521.html. Even the relatively mild statement by Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller that “Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea … remains a fundamental objective of the United States,” provoked a frisson of alarm in Jerusalem. See Barak Ravid, “‘Making Israel Sign Nuclear Treaty Won't be Miracle Cure for World Ills,’” Haaretz, May 7, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1083236.html. 15. The response amongst some sections of the Jewish community within the United States to the arrival of Lieberman in power was extremely negative. See Eric Yoffe, “Confronting Our Demagogue,” Forward, February 17, 2009, http://www.forward.com/articles/103108/. For a broader discussion of changes in Jewish attitudes within the United States, see Hilary Leila Krieger, “U.S. Jews Back Obama's Mid-East Path,” Jerusalem Post, March 23, 2009, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727519689&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull; Nathan Guttman, “The Pro-Israel Lobby – ‘Alive, Well, and Bipartisan?’” Haaretz, March 25, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073714.html. For a more recent discussion of how the new mood revealed itself during the recent American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] conference, see Nathan Guttman, “AIPAC Confronts a New Reality as Obama's Agenda Becomes Clear,” Forward, May 15, 2009, http://www.forward.com/articles/105680/. Additional informationNotes on contributorsJonathan MarcusJonathan Marcus is diplomatic correspondent for the BBC World Service. He travels to Israel often and broadcasts frequently on Israeli politics and diplomatic developments in the Middle East

From Jerusalem to Baghdad? Israel and the War in Iraq

The prevailing opinion that the Bush administration took the United States to war against Iraq in March 2003 under false pretenses has led many to believe that Israel’s security was the secret rationale for the war. According to this ‘‘war for Israel’’ thesis, neoconservative policymakers in the Bush administration, the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, and Israel’s government all pushed the United States to go to war with Iraq for the sake of Israel’s security. This article critically assesses this controversial claim and examines Israel’s role in the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. I argued that while neoconservatives were instrumental in promoting the Iraq war, Israel was not their primary concern and that although American Jewish organizations and the Israeli government did largely support the Iraq war, they did not seek it or actively lobby for it.

The Cultural Turn in the US-Israeli Relationship

AbstractThe 'special relationship' between the United States and Israel has endured for more than four decades and is one of the more anomalous global political alliances. Conventional explanations have consistently failed to elucidate the underlying nuances of a relationship that has endured the transition from the Cold War to the unipolar world to the present day 'war on terror' and is often costly to the USA in economic and geostrategic terms. This article argues that the nebulous but still valuable concept of political culture provides a crucial ingredient to any understanding of the special relationship. In perceiving their society to be a beacon of what they like to call 'freedom' and 'democracy,' in a world in which these values are largely absent, Americans have been encouraged to believe that they share a political kinship with societies similarly imbued and that they have an obligation to assist where such values are under threat. This process of identification is reinforced by the activities of the pro-Israel lobby and the beliefs of America's increasing number of Christian Evangelicals who support Israel for largely religious reasons. It is the many dimensions of this cultural identification that sets Israel apart from other nations and forms the bedrock of the US-Israeli special relationship.

Who Put Hate in My Sunday Paper?

Uncovering the Israeli-Republican-Evangelical Networksbehind the “Obsession” DVDSomething strange showed up inside the Sunday newspapers of millions ofAmericans last September. Thematerial included alongside comics, coupons,and advertisement for local stores is a controversial DVD called “Obsession:Radical Islam’sWar against theWest.” Some 28 million copies of it were distributedfor free in this fashion. In some ways, this campaign’s scale and ideologicalvenom were unprecedented: many newspapers stated that they hadnever previously distributed freeDVDs as inserts, certainly nothing with sucha charged content. The copies were distributed not randomly across the country,but only in the “swing states” (viz., Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan,Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, etc.) that were seen as toss-ups in theNovember presidential elections between McCain and Obama. Obviously,someone was trying to influence theAmerican electorate by playing on fearmongeringand hate-mongering themes. But who?Who was behind thismassive,multi-million dollar campaign?Answering that question proved harder than one might think, as thegroups behind this DVD have worked hard to hide their tracks. The connections,which were partially concealed in the DVD and the distribution campaign,took one from groups in Israel to pro-Israel lobby organizations in the ...

C1. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), Comments on the Influence of the Pro-Israel Lobby,Tikkun, May 2007.

C1. Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), Comments on the Influence of the Pro-Israel Lobby,Tikkun, May 2007.

Clusters of history: US involvement in the Palestine question

US involvement in Palestine, which has been long and complex, has generated a massive historical record that needs to be understood in order to locate not only some of the origins of today’s tragic situation but also to chart possible paths to change. The power of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, on US Middle East policy is well known; its background and relationship to the US fundamentalist Christian Right, less so. Starting from the nineteenth century, this article traces key elements and interests involved in the making of US policy, including AIPAC, the oil industry and the ‘Arabists’ of the State Department.

Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Right’s rise to power

The Christian Right is an increasingly powerful phenomenon in US politics. Extremely influential in the current administration, it has been building a mass base across the nation. This analysis of a movement that has been growing over the past four decades reveals the complex interrelationships between its different strands, their reach into the mass media, their war of attrition against socially liberal legislation and the opportunistic links with elements of the pro-Israel lobby. Also examined are the contradictions and potential contradictions within its different facets. Most alarming are those elements which revile, as anti-Christian, the very concept of a democratic society in their aim at overall ‘dominion’.