Israel lobby in the United States

Based on Wikipedia: Israel lobby in the United States

The Most Powerful Lobby You've Never Heard Of Isn't Jewish

Here's a fact that surprises most people: the largest pro-Israel lobbying organization in the United States isn't the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC. It's not run by Jewish Americans at all. It's Christians United for Israel, an evangelical Christian group with over seven million members—making it roughly the size of the population of Massachusetts.

This detail upends the common assumption that support for Israel in American politics is primarily driven by Jewish Americans, who make up less than three percent of the U.S. population. The reality is far stranger, with roots stretching back nearly two centuries before the modern State of Israel even existed.

Christian Zionism Before Zionism

In 1844, a professor of Hebrew at New York University published a book with the unwieldy title The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel Revived. The author's name was George Bush. Yes, he was related to those Bushes—the family that would later produce two American presidents.

Professor Bush wasn't Jewish. He was a Christian who believed that restoring the Jewish people to the land of Israel was a theological necessity—a step toward the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. His book denounced what he called "the thralldom and oppression which has so long ground them to the dust" and called for elevating Jews "to a rank of honorable repute among the nations of the earth."

The book sold approximately one million copies before the Civil War. To put that in perspective, the entire U.S. population in 1844 was about twenty million people. This was a genuine bestseller advocating for a Jewish homeland decades before Theodor Herzl would convene the First Zionist Congress in 1897.

Bush's vision wasn't purely altruistic. He believed that once Jews returned to their ancestral land, most would convert to Christianity, creating what he poetically called "a link of communication between humanity and God." This theological framework—supporting Jewish restoration to Israel as part of a divine plan that ultimately involves Christian eschatology—remains at the heart of evangelical Christian Zionism today.

The Blackstone Memorial

In 1891, a Chicago businessman and evangelist named William Eugene Blackstone organized something remarkable: a petition to the President of the United States calling for the return of Jews to Palestine. The document, known as the Blackstone Memorial, gathered signatures from some of the most prominent Americans of the era—industrialists, newspaper editors, members of Congress, and Supreme Court justices.

Blackstone presented this petition to President Benjamin Harrison, urging him to pressure the Ottoman Sultan (who then controlled Palestine) to allow Jewish settlement. The petition predated the modern Zionist movement by six years. When Herzl began organizing Zionism as a political movement, Blackstone sent him a marked-up Bible, suggesting that perhaps Herzl should consult the original texts.

This is what makes the Israel lobby so unusual among ethnic or interest-based lobbies in American politics. Most lobbying efforts are driven by people with a direct stake in the outcome—Cuban Americans advocating for Cuba policy, or farmers pushing for agricultural subsidies. The Israel lobby, however, has always been a coalition where the majority of members have no ethnic or familial connection to Israel whatsoever. They support it for religious reasons rooted in interpretations of biblical prophecy.

Jewish Zionism Arrives

Jewish Zionism didn't become a significant force in American politics until 1914, when a brilliant Boston lawyer named Louis Brandeis took up the cause. Brandeis would later become the first Jewish justice on the Supreme Court, but before that appointment, he transformed American Zionism from a marginal movement into a political force.

Under Brandeis's leadership, the Zionist movement in America grew tenfold, reaching about 200,000 members. He raised millions of dollars to help Jewish communities devastated by World War One in Europe, and his organization became, in the words of historians, "the financial center for the world Zionist movement."

Brandeis brought something new to Zionism: he framed it in terms Americans could embrace. He argued that Zionism was compatible with American ideals of democracy and self-determination. Jews didn't have to choose between being good Americans and supporting a Jewish homeland—the two identities reinforced each other.

A Declaration That Changed Everything

In 1917, the British government issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration—a brief letter from Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild stating that Britain viewed "with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In just sixty-seven words, a world power had endorsed the Zionist project.

The American Congress followed suit. On September 21, 1922—the same day the League of Nations approved the British Mandate for Palestine—Congress passed its first joint resolution supporting a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government had officially endorsed the idea of a Jewish state decades before one would actually exist.

The Pressure Campaign of 1947

The most intense lobbying effort in the history of the Israel lobby came in 1947 and 1948, as the United Nations debated whether to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The lobbying was so overwhelming that it left a lasting impression on President Harry Truman.

"I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance," Truman later wrote. He described "pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before." The White House was "subjected to a constant barrage."

Truman was particularly annoyed by what he called "the persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats." Yet he ultimately recognized the State of Israel just eleven minutes after it declared independence on May 14, 1948—over the objections of his own State Department.

This episode reveals a tension that has characterized the U.S.-Israel relationship from the beginning. Popular support for Israel was strong, but government officials often had reservations. The State Department worried about alienating Arab nations and endangering oil supplies. Military planners questioned the wisdom of commitment to a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors. Yet political pressure consistently pushed policy in a pro-Israel direction.

The Eisenhower Pause

The 1950s represented something of a lull. President Dwight Eisenhower had other priorities—containing Soviet expansion, managing crises in Iran and Guatemala, worrying about nuclear weapons. Israel wasn't at the forefront.

During this period, a lobbyist named Isaiah Kenen created what would become AIPAC. The organization started with the cumbersome name "American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs," but Kenen's executive committee soon decided to drop "Zionist" from the title. The word carried baggage. "American Israel Public Affairs Committee" sounded more neutral, more professional, more Washington.

This rebranding reflected a broader shift. The lobby was becoming institutionalized, developing the techniques and structures that would make it one of the most effective advocacy organizations in American history.

Before and After 1967

Something fundamental changed in 1967. Before that year, the U.S. government provided some aid to Israel but maintained general neutrality in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Relations between the two governments, while not hostile, remained "chilly" in the words of historians.

Then came the Six-Day War, in which Israel defeated the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in less than a week, capturing the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. Israel went from being perceived as a vulnerable underdog to a regional military power.

Paradoxically, this made American support increase rather than decrease. Israel was now seen as a strategic asset in the Cold War—a capable military force that could counter Soviet-backed Arab states. American aid began flowing at unprecedented levels.

Between 1976 and 2004, Israel received more direct foreign assistance from the United States than any other country on Earth. This represented roughly one-tenth of one percent of the three-trillion-dollar annual federal budget—a small percentage that nevertheless translated to billions of dollars each year.

How the Lobby Actually Works

The Israel lobby operates through both formal and informal channels, much like other powerful advocacy groups such as the National Rifle Association or the AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons).

The informal side includes things you might not immediately think of as lobbying. Christian television networks like the Christian Broadcasting Network provide favorable coverage of Israel. Churches organize annual Days of Prayer for the Peace of Jerusalem. Individual voters make their decisions partly based on candidates' positions on Israel.

Author Mitchell Bard describes the Jewish "informal lobby" as the way "Jewish voting behavior and American public opinion" shape policy. He argues that American Jews recognize the existential stakes involved. "Despite the fact that Israel is often referred to now as the fourth most powerful country in the world," Bard writes, "the perceived threat to Israel is not military defeat, it is annihilation."

This existential framing is crucial to understanding the lobby's intensity. For many supporters, Israel isn't just another country with interests to advance. It's a sanctuary for a people who faced genocide within living memory, surrounded by nations that have at various times called for its destruction.

The Formal Structure

The formal lobby consists of organized groups that directly engage with the political process. According to OpenSecrets, which tracks money in American politics, a "nationwide network of local political action committees" provides much of the pro-Israel funding in elections. These political action committees, or PACs, typically take their names from the regions their donors come from.

Three organizations sit at the apex of this structure. Christians United for Israel, as mentioned, is the largest by membership. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee directly lobbies Congress. And the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations serves as the main liaison between the Jewish community and the executive branch.

Christians United for Israel, led by Pastor John Hagee, explicitly asks its millions of members to pressure government leaders to "stop putting pressure on Israel to divide Jerusalem and the land of Israel." The organization gives "every pro-Israel Christian and Christian church the opportunity to stand up and speak up for Israel."

According to sociologist Gerhard Falk, evangelical Christian groups that lobby for Israel are so numerous that "it is not possible to list them all." Many connect through the National Association of Evangelicals, forming what Falk calls "a powerful religious lobby."

Who Has More Influence?

This raises an interesting question: between evangelical Christians and Jewish Americans, who actually drives Israel policy?

Author Michelle Goldberg argues that "Evangelical Christians have substantial influence on US Middle East Policy, more so than some better-known names such as AIPAC." This might seem counterintuitive given AIPAC's reputation as the quintessential Israel lobby, but the math is straightforward. There are roughly six million Jewish Americans and perhaps fifty million evangelical Christians. Even if Jewish Americans are more uniformly pro-Israel, they're vastly outnumbered.

Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz makes a related point: "the most right-leaning pro-Israel groups in the United States are not Jews at all, but Evangelical Christians." He cites organizations like Stand for Israel, co-founded by Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition.

Some scholars view Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel as simply one example among many of ethnic groups advocating for ancestral homelands—Irish Americans pushing for peace in Northern Ireland, Polish Americans concerned about NATO expansion, Armenian Americans seeking recognition of the Armenian genocide. What makes the Israel lobby different is that it's amplified by a much larger Christian movement pursuing the same goals for entirely different reasons.

The Internal Divide

It would be a mistake to think of the Israel lobby as monolithic. Significant divisions exist, particularly within the Jewish component.

The Oslo Accords of 1993, which established a framework for Palestinian self-governance and held out the prospect of a two-state solution, split the American Jewish community. "Liberal universalists" supported the peace process, while "hard-core Zionists—the Orthodox community and right wing Jews" opposed territorial compromises. This division mirrored debates within Israel itself.

In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama acknowledged these internal tensions. "There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says, 'unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, that you're anti-Israel,'" he said, referring to Israel's right-wing political party. "That can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."

Conservative commentators noted that Obama's framing was slightly outdated—Likud hadn't been Israel's governing party for three years at that point—but his underlying point resonated. The lobby contained multitudes.

Right and Left

Political scientists John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard attempted to map this terrain in their controversial 2007 book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. They identified what they saw as the lobby's core: AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Anti-Defamation League, and Christians United for Israel.

They also listed organizations they considered part of the right-leaning component: think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, and media watchdog groups like the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, known by its acronym CAMERA.

But others pushed back on this characterization. Political scientist Stephen Zunes pointed to left-leaning pro-Israel organizations that Mearsheimer and Walt had largely ignored: Americans for Peace Now, the Tikkun Community, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, and the Israel Policy Forum. These groups, Zunes argued, are also "pro-Israel" but oppose "the occupation, the settlements, the separation wall, and Washington's unconditional support for Israeli policies."

In 2008, a new organization called J Street launched, explicitly positioning itself as "pro-peace, pro-Israel." Founded with involvement from former Clinton administration official Jeremy Ben Ami and policy analyst Daniel Levy, J Street supports a two-state solution and favors diplomacy over military action—including with Iran. The organization represents those who believe you can be genuinely supportive of Israel while disagreeing with its government's policies.

Fifty-One Organizations

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations brings together fifty-one of the largest Jewish groups in America. Its self-described mission includes "forging diverse groups into a unified force for Israel's well-being" and working to "strengthen and foster the special US-Israel relationship."

This aggregating function is important. As Mitchell Bard notes, the goal is to present policymakers with "unified and representative messages" by filtering the diversity of opinions held by smaller groups and the broader American Jewish community. The result is often a more hawkish position than the community as a whole might hold, since consensus-building tends to favor the most passionate voices.

Strange Bedfellows

The alliance between Jewish Zionists and Christian Zionists has always been somewhat awkward. Their goals align—support for Israel—but their motivations diverge dramatically.

Many evangelical Christians base their support on specific biblical passages, particularly those they interpret as predicting that Jewish restoration to Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ. Some believe the end times will culminate in mass Jewish conversion to Christianity. Others anticipate apocalyptic events that don't end well for non-believers of any ethnicity.

This has made some Israelis and American Jews uncomfortable. As Dershowitz notes, some have criticized evangelical supporters for having "ulterior motives." There's something disconcerting about allying with people who support your national project because they believe it's a step toward prophecies you don't share and may find troubling.

Yet the alliance persists. In practical political terms, evangelical support translates into millions of votes and substantial financial contributions. Whatever theological disagreements exist, they're set aside in favor of shared immediate objectives.

Comparisons and Controversies

Professors Mearsheimer and Walt sparked enormous controversy with their analysis of the Israel lobby, first in a 2006 article in the London Review of Books, then in their expanded book. They argued that the lobby, while operating through entirely legal means, had pushed American foreign policy in directions that weren't always in America's interest.

But they also made a point that's easy to overlook: "In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers' unions, or other ethnic lobbies." There's nothing improper about advocacy. The First Amendment protects the right to petition the government.

What made the Israel lobby different, they argued, wasn't its methods but its success. "For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better." They noted that "pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak."

This framing matters because discussions of the Israel lobby can veer into uncomfortable territory. Accusations of excessive Jewish influence in politics have a long and ugly history, from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion—a notorious antisemitic forgery—to Nazi propaganda. Mearsheimer and Walt explicitly distanced themselves from such conspiracy theories while still arguing that the lobby merited scrutiny.

The Funding Question

One thing that sets the Israel lobby apart from many advocacy groups is its willingness to fund primary challenges against politicians it views as insufficiently supportive. This isn't just about supporting friendly candidates; it's about actively working to defeat those seen as hostile to Israel.

Members of both major political parties have faced such challenges. For politicians, this creates strong incentives. Crossing the Israel lobby means potentially facing a well-funded primary opponent. Supporting it means having access to a network of donors and volunteers.

Campaign finance regulations create some interesting dynamics here. AIPAC itself, as a lobbying organization, cannot directly fund political campaigns. But the network of PACs that share its goals can and do. This structure—a central organization providing messaging and coordination, surrounded by legally separate entities that handle campaign finance—is common in American politics but particularly well-developed in the pro-Israel space.

What Makes a Lobby Powerful?

Why has the Israel lobby been so effective? Several factors converge.

First, intensity. For supporters, Israel isn't just another policy issue. It's connected to religious conviction, ethnic identity, historical trauma, and existential concern. People who care deeply about an issue vote on it, donate to it, and organize around it. People with mild preferences don't.

Second, bipartisan appeal. Unlike issues that divide along party lines, support for Israel has historically drawn from both Democrats and Republicans—though this has begun to shift in recent years. A lobby that can work both sides of the aisle has structural advantages.

Third, organization. The formal structure of AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents, and the network of PACs represents decades of institution-building. Information flows efficiently. Talking points are coordinated. Responses to critics are rapid.

Fourth, the absence of effective opposition. As Mearsheimer and Walt noted, pro-Arab groups are comparatively weak. When one side of an issue is intensely organized and the other side isn't, policy tends to reflect the organized side's preferences.

Fifth, elite consensus. For much of the post-1967 period, support for Israel was simply assumed in foreign policy circles. Questioning it marked you as outside the mainstream. This made lobbying easier—advocates weren't trying to change minds so much as reinforce existing inclinations.

A Relationship in Flux

The U.S.-Israel relationship that the lobby has cultivated is unlike any other in American foreign policy. Annual military aid commitments, intelligence sharing, diplomatic support at the United Nations, and deep institutional ties connect the two countries.

But the dynamics are shifting. Younger Americans, including younger Jewish Americans, show less reflexive support for Israel than their parents and grandparents. The rise of social media has given voice to Palestinian perspectives that were largely absent from mainstream American discourse. The evangelical Christian community, while still overwhelmingly pro-Israel, is not growing as a share of the population.

Within Israel itself, political shifts—particularly the growth of the settler movement and the Netanyahu government's rightward trajectory—have complicated the traditional American narrative of Israel as a liberal democracy aligned with American values. Some American Jews who strongly support Israel's existence find themselves uncomfortable with its current government's policies.

The lobby that emerged from nineteenth-century Christian Zionism and early twentieth-century Jewish advocacy continues to shape American policy. But whether it can maintain its influence as demographics and attitudes shift remains an open question. What began as a religious conviction about biblical prophecy, merged with an ethnic community's concern for a threatened homeland, and evolved into one of the most sophisticated advocacy operations in American politics now faces a new generation that may not share its assumptions.

Understanding how we got here—the surprising history of Christian support preceding Jewish support, the Cold War realignment, the institutional innovations, the internal tensions—is essential for understanding where we might be going. The lobby's story is, in many ways, a story about how American politics works: how organized minorities can shape policy, how religious conviction translates into political action, and how interests that seem aligned can rest on fundamentally different foundations.