WHEN protesters march on the streets of London, trying to stop the Israel Defence Force’s bloody war on the people of Gaza, they do so because Israel is an ally of Britain.
 
They know that pushing the British government away from its support for the war can have a big effect: Britain offers legal and political cover for Israel. Equally importantly, Britain also gives the US — Israel’s armourer  — key political cover for its support for Netanyahu’s war. Changing Britain’s stance creates important pressure on Israel.
 
Netanyahu recognised this himself. Last year he told Israeli politicians: “We need three things from the US: munitions, munitions, and munitions.”

However, he added that this supply of shells and bombs, which is vital to Israel’s war on Gaza, is threatened because: “There are huge demonstrations in Western capitals” which put these arms transfers at risk. Israel can’t fight a war without US shells and bombs.

But the size of the protest movement worries President Biden, because it threatens the US place as “leader” of the “Western world,” and may threaten his re-election.
 
This raises the question of why the US and British political establishments cling so hard to Israel’s war machine, even as it raises big, politically disruptive protests in their capitals.
 
There is a not uncommon feeling in the protest movement that Israel and Israel’s supporters have won over the US and British political leadership by aggressive, well-funded persuasion. A belief that the “zionist lobby” has captured our politicians. It’s not uncommon, but it is also in my view quite wrong.
 
Joe Biden made clear why the US so firmly backs Israel back in 1986: the then-US senator said that supporting Israel “is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the US of US would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.”
 
Biden was saying that it’s about what Israel does for the US, not what the US does for Israel. He was making clear the money — and the guns and the political support — flow from the US to Israel, not the other way around.
 
He was making the case that Israel was a “strategic ally,” a long-term, armed power, that would stand up against US “enemies” and rivals in the region. Israel could be relied on to take the US side in an important part of the world: So during the “cold war,” Israel would — with US arms and support  — fight and beat “Soviet” leaning states — as Israel fought and beat Egypt in 1967 and Syria in 1973. As a “strategic ally” in the post-cold war era, Israel is now an armed bulwark against US rivals and enemies in the region like Iran.
 
Back in 1986, Biden compared Israel with other strategic allies. Biden told Israel’s ambassador to Washington that US aid to Israel was “the biggest bang for our buck,” and described Saudi Arabia as “no more than a collection of 500 princes and their families.” Biden was arguing that the US got better value out of Israel than Saudi Arabia as a “strategic ally.”
 
The point here is that, broadly, the US political elite support Israel because they think this buys them influence in the Middle East. The argument that the driving force for US support of Israel is lobbying by Israel and its supporters is wrong: it opens the door to anti-semitic conspiracy theories about “Jewish money” corrupting or controlling Western politicians (who are perfectly capable of being corrupt by themselves and wanting control and influence for themselves). It means we don’t see the US and Israel working together in a neocolonial way.
 
This doesn’t mean there isn’t lobbying and propaganda by Israel or by Israel’s supporters, or that it has no effect — Aipac in the US, for example, is a powerful lobby that seeks to keep US politics pro-Israel and to do so by keeping US politics as firmly on the right as it can.

In some ways, pro-Israel lobbying may even increase as conflict in the region and protests in the West reduce Israel’s attractiveness as a “strategic ally.” But it is not the driving force for US support for Israel. Or for British support for Israel, which is very closely linked to “Atlanticist” attempts to stay best buddies with the US.
 
Many compare Israel with apartheid South Africa: it might be useful to remember why people thought British political leaders supported apartheid South Africa.
 
There was South African lobbying in Britain — South Africa’s “influencers” took Tory MPs on trips to convince them apartheid was fine, just as pro-Israel lobbyists now organise “delegations” of MPs to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

South Africa also had an extensive spying operation aimed at disrupting anti-apartheid protesters in Britain. But, important as it was, South African lobbying was not the main reason for British MPs supporting apartheid.

Everyone understood that the main reasons British MPs backed apartheid was first, they saw South Africa as a powerful bulwark against Britain’s “enemies” — they backed South Africa because of “anti-communism,” seeing the racist state as a bulwark against Russian influence or radical national liberation movements.

They also backed apartheid because they thought Britain could do good, lucrative business with South Africa: the fact it was a racist state meant they thought it was a financially useful state. They also often backed the racist apartheid system because, frankly, they were a bit racist themselves: they were sympathetic to white “colonial” rule and didn’t like the look of rebellious black people.
 
US — and British — support for Israel works the same way. The political leadership see Israel as a strategic ally, an armed friendly nation which will act in the “Western” interests precisely because it gets weapons, money and political support from the US and Britain.

They see Israel as a useful business partner — though this is probably less of a motivation than in the South African case  — and they often aren’t very sympathetic about the mostly Muslim people who are getting killed in the process.

Follow Solomon on X @SolHughesWriter.