For didactic purposes, we could organize the different interpretations of this relationship using two famous publications: the classic The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, a 2007 book by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, and the recent bestseller The Arc of a Covenant. : The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People by Walter Russell Mead, published in 2022.
For Mearsheimer and Walt, proIsrael interest groups exercise significant control over the formulation of United States policy toward the Middle East, highlighting the influence of organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac). The authors argue that this influence affects the ability of the United States to pursue a balanced, truly strategic foreign policy in the region. They therefore claim that the special relationship between the two countries may reflect the interests of certain lobby groups rather than the effective national interests of the United States.
According to Mead, however, longterm American support for Israel rests on other issues. It has to do with shared values and political and cultural affinities that emanate from ordinary citizens and are reflected in the decisions of various decisionmakers throughout history. For the author, the weight of the proIsrael lobby is overestimated, and what is driving United States governments to turn to Israel actually has to do with forces that mix religious belief and realpolitik. Mead moves from the modern evangelical movement to the socalled Sunbelt Coalition (referring to a geographical region in the United States that includes the southern and western states of the country and is often associated with conservative political tendencies) to explore the reasons for his explain analysis.
For those who haven’t had a chance to read these two books, I highly recommend them. These are not only reputable sources, but also narratives that are accessible to the general public and help to qualitatively problematize the current debate.
In fact, these are opportune times to think again about the “politics of foreign policy.”