Thinking first about Israel

The friend asking what would happen if US stopped arms donations was not happy that I first brought up Israel, claiming that to be disproportionate.  I replied:

Is it disproportionate to think first about Israel as a recipient of US military and diplomatic assistance?  I think not.

Israel is the #1 recipient of US military aid (donated weapons), diplomatic support (including Security Council vetos, special US negotiations such as Abraham accords, and General Assembly vetos), and as you say, "intelligence sharing."

Egypt receives the same basic annual $3.5B military aid, but doesn't get the special gifts (such as $700M restock of Iron Dome parts recently) on top of the annual donation, and Egypt has often faced repermands and suspensions.  Egypt receives the same annual donation as Israel because of agreements in the Camp David Accords, which were initiated to better protect Israel.  So, basically, the #2 recipient of donated weapons is much about Israel too.

It's fairly common understanding that the Middle East is the biggest war risk in the world (aka powderkeg).  War has never stopped there, despite paper thin "agreements" recently among US client state regimes there which generally don't represent popular feelings in Arab countries.

Weapons sales to Saudi Arabia may be larger.  They pay cash for their weapons and sell oil in US dollars even if not to USA--which also helps USA.  Saudi Arabia is allowed to buy weapons, that way it can win Sunni Islamic hearts and minds to look at places other than Israel, such as Yemen.  But it's not very successful, as Israel remains the number one shared concern of Islamic extremists around the world, as well as Arabs and muslims generally, regardless of whether Shia or Sunni.

It is also commonly believed that the Israel Lobby is the #1 most influential foreign lobby in the USA.  Politicians of all stripes have appeared before AIPAC, for example.  Junket trips and personal connections, dealmaking, and corruption are legendary.  Now it's an open question how the unmatched support that Israel gets from USA is because of shared geopolitical interests (and usefulness to US Empire) and how much is the result of unmatched lobbying prowess.  Noam Chomsky points to how useful Israel is to US Imperial Planners, and how that got a big boost in that regards in 1967 (when Israel showed the world what it can do) which hasn't worn off, and he discounts the notion of Israel wagging the US dog simply because of lobbying, instead he paints Israel as the key street fighter for the US Empire.  Low level military people I've met don't believe this and say that Israel is not so beloved, respected, or trusted by US military, and that its unmatched US support results from lobbying and paid off politicians.  I think it's a combination of both.

But one way or the other, it's not clear to me that US can ever get out of the global domination business--which it must do soon for the world to be sustainable--without dropping support for Israel.  And then the US would get dumped on by Israel's next patron.  That box is another reason why the world we know is unsustainable, the only question is how it's going to evolve or end.  Catastrophically is the best guess.