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 U.S. 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 Aug. 20, 2024.
These activists are calling for a U.S. arms embargo on Israel, which the Democratic Party’s new national platform does not include.
The Conversation U.S.’s politics editor Amy Lieberman spoke with Dov Waxman, a scholar of Israel studies, to better understand what is behind the U.S.’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 U.S. military aid to Israel. This position is typical of most Democratic Party members, as well as most Republicans.
Opponents of U.S. 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 U.S. has its own economic and strategic reasons for supplying that military aid. It is a U.S. 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 U.S. aid to Israel helps the U.S. domestically?
When the U.S. gives military aid to Israel, the Israeli government is not putting that money in its pocket. The vast majority of the money that the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. aid to Israel historically been like, before the Gaza war?
Historically, Israel has received more U.S. foreign aid than any other country. In total, the U.S. 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 U.S. provided Israel with only economic aid, but, starting in the 1960s during the Kennedy administration, it began providing military aid as well. The U.S. 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 U.S. significantly increased its military aid to Israel. This was a turning point in many ways for the U.S.-Israel relationship, because since then the U.S. has seen Israel as a valuable ally.
Another major increase in U.S. 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 U.S. aid to Israel because of its strategic interest to the U.S.
Since then, U.S. military aid has continued to steadily increase over the years, and in the past year it has risen following Hamas’ Oct. 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 U.S. national interests.
How does U.S. aid to Israel serve America’s national interests?
A militarily strong Israel helps the U.S. 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 U.S., 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S., 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 U.S.’s perspective, Israel can help the U.S. 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 U.S.’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 U.S. 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 U.S. should exercise greater oversight or control over how American weaponry can be used.
Dov Waxman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
