HOME May-June 2011 Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web



by Professor Paul Eidelberg


Why hasn't any Israeli government revealed America's economic as well as strategic and technological dependence on Israel? Leaving this question for a future article, the following is extracted from my book "An American Political Scientist in Israel" (Lexington Books, 2010).

Many pundits contend that Israel, or rather its Government's undeviating policy of land for peace is simply the consequence of U.S. pressure dating back to the Six-Day War of June 1967, when Israel regained possession of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (as well as the Sinai and the Golan Heights). As may be seen in the Rogers Plan (1967), the Reagan Plan (1982), and the current Saudi-sponsored Road Map, Washington, more so since Barack Obama entered the White House, (desperately) wants Israel to return to her pre-1967 borders. Why?

What is Washington's primary motive, which is independent of whether Democrats or Republicans control the White House.

As is well known, the American economy depends very much on oil. Saudi Arabia not only sits on 25 percent of the world's proven reserves, but Saudi oil, barrel per barrel, is the cheapest oil in the world to extract. Less than 24 hours after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Saudis put on the market an extra nine million barrels of oil, going mostly to the United States. (The economic meltdown in the United States makes the availability of this oil all the more important.)

It is also known that Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim kingdom, has supported the Sunni dominated PLO for several years and advocates a Palestinian state. With this fact connected to the U.S. purchase of Saudi oil and to the Saudi purchase of American arms, Riyadh should not find it difficult to persuade Washington that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is "the core of the Middle East problem," and that the solution of this problem requires the U.S. to induce Israel to return to her pre-1967 borders. Washington, it seems, can the more readily pressure Israel because the U.S. is Israel's major arms supplier. Saudi oil, it seems, silently lubricates Israel's undeviating policy of land for peace.

This economic interpretation probably has the most proponents. It's charmingly simple and superficial, which is probably why it's so popular. Virtually everyone assumes that Washington exerts irresistible diplomatic pressure on Israeli prime ministers. But surely the efficacy of this pressure on depends on the personal character of these prime ministers: their courage and wisdom, their sense of national pride and awareness of the magnitude of the issue. Some prime ministers stand firm, others crumble. On the other hand, perhaps the yielding to pressure on the part of certain prime ministers should be related to their covert political ambitions ...

American military assistance alone does not adequately explain why Israeli prime ministers have clasped the blood-stained hands of Yasser Arafat. Nor does it adequately explain why Israel, a reputed democracy, negotiates with, and expects to obtain genuine and abiding peace from, Arab despots and tyrannies whose 1,400-year culture exalts war (jihad). Besides, how can Israel achieve peace by yielding land from which Arab terrorists and armies can all the more successfully wage war against the Jewish state? Are Israel's ruling elites fools or craven? ...

Joseph Sisco, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, once told Israeli author Shmuel Katz, "I want to assure you, Mr. Katz, that if we were not getting full value for our money, you would not get a cent from us." American foreign policy-makers are pragmatists, not moralists. U.S. aid to Israel is animated by national self-interest — pious platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding. As we shall now see, Israel is, and has been, America's biggest strategic bargain — and Israel's ruling elites know this.

From the U.S. to Israel:

What has the U.S. received from Israel in return?

Israel's ruling elite is deliberately silent about these facts, which would not only heighten Jewish pride and self-confidence, but would also make Israelis contemptuous of the government's spineless policy of land for peace as well as its frequent subservience to Washington (depending on the character of its prime minister ...).

Viewed in this light, the feared loss of $3 billion in U.S. military aid is a bogeyman. In fact, $3 billion is probably less than the sum Israel loses in tax evasion (notorious in this country).

Besides, far more than $3 billion was lost as a direct consequence of the policy of land for peace. Suffice to mention the multi-billion dollar price tag on the so-called security fence; the multi-billion dollar cost of withdrawing from Gaza, which required the redeployment of the Israel Defense Forces and financial compensation of the 8,000 Jews whose homes, farms, and factories were destroyed by the Sharon Government. (Nor should we ignore the incalculable cost of devastating the lives of these productive Jews, whose farms and factories contributed $100,000,000 annually to Israel's economy and who certainly did not obtain peace from the misnamed "peace process.")

Professor Paul Eidelberg (Ph.D. University of Chicago), is a professor of political science at Bar Ilan University and the author of many books. He is President of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy. Contact him at and visit his website at


Return_________________________End of Story___________________________Return

HOME May-June 2011 Featured Stories Background Information News On The Web