Why Does the U.S. Support Israel?

Noam Chomsky, a distinguished linguist, philosopher, and political analyst, has long explored the intricate layers of U.S. foreign policy, providing insights into the ideological and strategic dynamics behind America’s relationships on the global stage. In a 2014 lecture, Chomsky addressed the question of “Why Does the U.S. Support Israel?” offering a thought-provoking examination of the religious, historical, and geopolitical forces that have cemented the U.S.-Israel alliance. Here, he outlines how Christian Zionism, colonial ideology, and strategic interests play fundamental roles in shaping this enduring partnership.

“Why does the United States support Israel? Well, there’s a history—and a very interesting one—that actually goes back a long time. One thing to remember is that Christian Zionism is a very powerful force, predating Jewish Zionism.

In England, Christian Zionism was particularly influential among British elites. It played a part in the motivation for the Balfour Declaration and Britain’s support for the Jewish colonization of Israel. Remember, the Bible said… well, that’s a significant aspect of British elite culture. This was also true in the United States, where Woodrow Wilson, a devout Christian, read the Bible daily. Harry Truman did as well. In the Roosevelt administration, Harold Ickes, a leading official, once described the return of the Jews to Palestine as “the greatest event in history,” fulfilling biblical lessons.

These are deeply religious countries where so-called biblical commands are taken quite literally. Additionally, this support is part of the broader process of colonization, the last phase of European colonization. Notice that the countries most supportive of Israel include not only the United States but also Australia and Canada—the Anglosphere, sometimes called, consisting of settler-colonial societies. Unlike the British in India, for example, these are societies where settlers came in and largely displaced the native populations. South Africa and Algeria, under French rule, were somewhat similar, driven also by religious principles and Christian Zionism. These are major cultural factors.

There are also significant geopolitical factors. If you go back to 1948, there was actually a split between the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon regarding the new state of Israel. The State Department was cautious, not fully committed to Israeli conquests, concerned about refugee issues, and wanted solutions for the refugee problem. The Pentagon, however, was impressed with Israel’s military potential and successes. According to declassified internal records, the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw Israel as the second-largest military force in the region after Turkey and a potential base for U.S. power in the region.

In 1958, during a serious regional crisis, Israel was the only state that strongly cooperated with Britain and the United States, winning support from their governments and militaries. By 1967, the close U.S.-Israel relations were firmly established when Israel performed a major service for the U.S. by weakening secular Arab nationalism, a significant opponent of the U.S., and supporting radical Islam, which the U.S. also supported.

Recently, during the latest Gaza attack, when Israel started running low on munitions despite being heavily armed, the United States provided additional munitions through the Pentagon. Notably, these were pre-positioned U.S. munitions, stored in Israel for eventual American use—a testament to Israel’s role as a military outpost for the United States. The close intelligence relationship between the two countries goes way back, and the media generally supports government policy with minimal questioning, accepting the policy overall.

Consider, for instance, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. You won’t find the phrase “U.S. invasion of Iraq” in the mainstream U.S. media, though it was a clear act of aggression—what the Nuremberg Trials called “the supreme international crime.” President Obama is often praised as opposing the invasion, but he merely called it a strategic mistake, not condemning it as morally wrong. Similarly, in Vietnam, current commemorations focus on U.S. sacrifices rather than acknowledging it as an invasion of South Vietnam.

This tendency for intellectuals to align with state and corporate power is not unique to the United States. In Britain, there are current debates in literary journals like the Times Literary Supplement on whether Britain should finally confront the genocidal character of its colonial history. Intellectuals often view themselves as dissidents standing up to power, but historically, that’s been a small, often punished, minority. The mainstream tends to align with state power—a “herd of independent minds” marching in unison with authority. Nothing new here, though it’s unfortunate and something we must continue to challenge.”