isreal has a stragetic military location, its forces are very good, they are a valuable ally against terror adn our need for oil

In the United States and around the world, many are questioning why, despite some mild rebukes, Washington has maintained its large-scale military, financial, and diplomatic support for the Israeli occupation in the face of unprecedented violations of international law and human rights standards by Israeli occupation forces. Why is there such strong bipartisan support for Israel's right-wing prime minister Ariel Sharon's policies in the occupied Palestinian territories?
...

In the United States and around the world, many are questioning why, despite some mild rebukes, Washington has maintained its large-scale military, financial, and diplomatic support for the Israeli occupation in the face of unprecedented violations of international law and human rights standards by Israeli occupation forces. Why is there such strong bipartisan support for Israel's right-wing prime minister Ariel Sharon's policies in the occupied Palestinian territories?

The close relationship between the U.S. and Israel has been one of the most salient features in U.S. foreign policy for nearly three and a half decades. The well over $3 billion in military and economic aid sent annually to Israel by Washington is rarely questioned in Congress, even by liberals who normally challenge U.S. aid to governments that engage in widespread violations of human rights--or by conservatives who usually oppose foreign aid in general. Virtually all Western countries share the United States' strong support for Israel's legitimate right to exist in peace and security, yet these same nations have refused to provide arms and aid while the occupation of lands seized in the 1967 war continues. None come close to offering the level of diplomatic support provided by Washington--with the United States often standing alone with Israel at the United Nations and other international forums when objections are raised over ongoing Israeli violations of international law and related concerns.

Although U.S. backing of successive Israeli governments, like most foreign policy decisions, is often rationalized on moral grounds, there is little evidence that moral imperatives play more of a determining role in guiding U.S. policy in the Middle East than in any other part of the world. Most Americans do share a moral commitment to Israel's survival as a Jewish state, but this would not account for the level of financial, military, and diplomatic support provided. American aid to Israel goes well beyond protecting Israel's security needs within its internationally recognized borders. U.S. assistance includes support for policies in militarily occupied territories that often violate well-established legal and ethical standards of international behavior.

Were Israel's security interests paramount in the eyes of American policymakers, U.S. aid to Israel would have been highest in the early years of the existence of the Jewish state, when its democratic institutions were strongest and its strategic situation most vulnerable, and would have declined as its military power grew dramatically and its repression against Palestinians in the occupied territories increased. Instead, the trend has been in just the opposite direction: major U.S. military and economic aid did not begin until after the 1967 war. Indeed, 99% of U.S. military assistance to Israel since its establishment came only after Israel proved itself to be far stronger than any combination of Arab armies and after Israeli occupation forces became the rulers of a large Palestinian population.

Similarly, U.S. aid to Israel is higher now than twenty-five years ago. This was at a time when Egypt's massive and well-equipped armed forces threatened war; today, Israel has a longstanding peace treaty with Egypt and a large demilitarized and internationally monitored buffer zone keeping its army at a distance. At that time, Syria's military was expanding rapidly with advanced Soviet weaponry; today, Syria has made clear its willingness to live in peace with Israel in return for the occupied Golan Heights--and Syria's military capabilities have been declining, weakened by the collapse of its Soviet patron.

Also in the mid-1970s, Jordan still claimed the West Bank and stationed large numbers of troops along its lengthy border and the demarcation line with Israel; today, Jordan has signed a peace treaty and has established fully normalized relations. At that time, Iraq was embarking upon its vast program of militarization. Iraq's armed forces have since been devastated as a result of the Gulf War and subsequent international sanctions and monitoring. This raises serious questions as to why U.S. aid has either remained steady or actually increased each year since.

In the hypothetical event that all U.S. aid to Israel were immediately cut off, it would be many years before Israel would be under significantly greater military threat than it is today. Israel has both a major domestic arms industry and an existing military force far more capable and powerful than any conceivable combination of opposing forces. There would be no question of Israel's survival being at risk militarily in the foreseeable future. When Israel was less dominant militarily, there was no such consensus for U.S. backing of Israel. Though the recent escalation of terrorist attacks inside Israel has raised widespread concerns about the safety of the Israeli public, the vast majority of U.S. military aid has no correlation to counterterrorism efforts.

In short, the growing U.S. support for the Israeli government, like U.S. support for allies elsewhere in the world, is not motivated primarily by objective security needs or a strong moral commitment to the country. Rather, as elsewhere, U.S. foreign policy is motivated primarily to advance its own perceived strategic interests.



Strategic Reasons for Continuing U.S. Support
There is a broad bipartisan consensus among policymakers that Israel has advanced U.S. interest in the Middle East and beyond.

Israel has successfully prevented victories by radical nationalist movements in Lebanon and Jordan, as well as in Palestine.
Israel has kept Syria, for many years an ally of the Soviet Union, in check.
Israel's air force is predominant throughout the region.
Israel's frequent wars have provided battlefield testing for American arms, often against Soviet weapons.
It has served as a conduit for U.S. arms to regimes and movements too unpopular in the United States for openly granting direct military assistance, such as apartheid South Africa, the Islamic Republic in Iran, the military junta in Guatemala, and the Nicaraguan Contras. Israeli military advisers have assisted the Contras, the Salvadoran junta, and foreign occupation forces in Namibia and Western Sahara.
Israel's intelligence service has assisted the U.S. in intelligence gathering and covert operations.
Israel has missiles capable of reaching as far as the former Soviet Union, it possesses a nuclear arsenal of hundreds of weapons, and it has cooperated with the U.S. military-industrial complex with research and development for new jet fighters and anti-missile defense systems.

There is a lot of sympathy towards Israel. Whatever plights the Arabic states may have suffered in their time are not well known unless you read the seven pillars of wisdom. There is also a big Israeli lobby in the US and EU nit matched by the Arabic countries. They need to make their presence more felt in diplomatic circles.

Israel is a strategic military ally in the middle east. Also, the Jewish lobby in the United States is very large and powerful and it is hard to win a national election without their support.

Perhaps the only true democracy in the middle east.Also a true ally and one that has a military that is worthy of respect.

It is a matter of principle. We believe the Muslims are wrong in hating Jews for hates sake, but despots find that an easy sell, i.e. hate "him" and respect me and thee. This is not unlike the hate the Democrats are teaching their people to have for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "corporate America." It's all pretty much the same crap.

I think it's all about the main ideals we associate with democracy. For one, Israel is as close to a democracy as it comes in the Middle East, as can be shown from the fact that its people believe that even their own president Ehud Olmert is not above a corruption scandal. While this may not reflect positively on our ties with Israel, it does show that Israel believes in a relatively corruption-free government. (And in America, trust in government is fundamental.) For another thing, I think we are against violence for v...

I think it's all about the main ideals we associate with democracy. For one, Israel is as close to a democracy as it comes in the Middle East, as can be shown from the fact that its people believe that even their own president Ehud Olmert is not above a corruption scandal. While this may not reflect positively on our ties with Israel, it does show that Israel believes in a relatively corruption-free government. (And in America, trust in government is fundamental.) For another thing, I think we are against violence for violences' sake, as well as hatred for hatreds' sake. Few people can actually logically explain their own reasons for committing violent acts, but are involved in radical principles of extremism nonetheless.