skip to Main Content

Israeli Occupation Entity: The Tail that Wags the American Dog

The question of who has the upper hand in America and the Israeli occupation entity’s relationship has long been contested, with claims of the ‘Israel lobby’ exerting power and control over American foreign policy [1]. 

The Israeli occupation entity is effectively bound by the supreme American interests, and if there is a difference between the two, the former only submits to American orders. 

Furthermore, if disagreement appears between American and Israeli occupation entity’s positions, and America does not put pressure on the latter, then the disagreement is superficial and does not affect American interests.

The cementing of the Imperialist-Zionist Relationship

To understand this relationship, we need to explore how the Israeli occupation entity was founded. 

In the beginning of the 20th century, imperialist Britain sought a large and advanced military base to exist in an area of strategic importance. The intellectual force of the Zionist Jews wanted a large country unrestricted by borders as a ‘nation state for the Jewish people,’ with the components that would allow it to survive and ultimately thrive , such as good relations with other countries, strong investment, trade and employment [2]. Therefore, the interest of Britain was to be met by the interests of the dominant intellectual force of the Zionists who advocated for a nationalist state. As Joe Biden once mentioned, “if there was no Israel, we would have to invent one to fulfil our interests.” [3]

Theodore Herzl, known as the ‘founding father of Zionism’ established the World Zionist Organization in 1897 and sought the support of the great powers i.e. Britain to achieve the goal of creating this Jewish state [3]. In 1903, during the Sixth Zionist Congress, Herzl proposed the Uganda scheme, which supported the idea of a Jewish state in British East Africa [4]. The Jewish Territorialist Organization (ITO) was formed as a result of the unification of various groups who had supported Herzl’s Uganda proposals from 1903-1905. However, the Uganda scheme was rejected by the British because they considered it impractical and thus suggested Palestine [4].

One can therefore deduce that the Zionists were hunters for sources of power in the world that could actualize their vision of a Jewish homeland, and wherever the Imperialists placed the Zionists, the Zionists obliged. Palestine was chosen by Britain because it wanted to control the Suez Canal; long known for its favorable geographical location. Britain had colonies in Asia and Africa, and the canal enabled easier access to those colonies with a quicker transportation of goods, thus playing a vital role in the British economy [5].

Zionist Expansionism

America rose to the helm of world leadership Post WWII and took over the reins from Britain which was involved in a power struggle with America. This was in the wake of the crumbling British Empire as a result of the liberation movements. When Britain withdrew from Palestine, the UN partition plan gave 55% of Palestine to the newly created ‘Israel’ and 45% was to remain for indigenous Palestinians, even though Palestinians made up around 70% of the total population [6]. 

The Israeli occupation entity was granted limited borders in 1948 to serve its functional role as a strategic Western military base. If the Zionists were driving the Imperialists, then the Imperialists would have granted them the land ‘from the Nile to the Euphrates’ in 1948 [7].

Expansionism is inherent to Zionist ideology. The Israeli occupation entity made it clear from the start that they would not tolerate being limited by the borders given to them, such that in front of any siege or war, they were not to be threatened nor overtaken; essentially demanding impunity in war. 

In 1947, Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of the Israeli occupation entity and the architect of the Nakba, clarified to his friends in the leadership that if the map of the partition plan were not satisfactory, the Jewish state would not be obliged to accept it and could seek its expansion [8]. This explains why when the Nakba took place in 1948, the Zionist terrorists took over 78% of the land, as opposed to 55% that was handed over by the UN [6]. The aggressiveness it displays in expanding its borders is essential in changing the land from a military base, which the West wanted, to a real country capable of surviving. This was because they saw expansion as a necessary stabilizing factor as opposed to if the entity was small and vulnerable.  

The world saw this unfold in 1967 with the annexation of the Gaza Strip, the West bank, the Sinai Peninsula (Egyptian territory), and the Golan Heights (Syrian territory) [9]. Until today, the West Bank and Golan Heights are occupied, while Gaza today is under besiegement. It is interesting to note that the 1967 borders were never accepted by America, nor any member of the international community [9]. The reality is that the West was not interested in the military base of the Israeli occupation entity expanding its borders. Rather, they saw the borders of 1948 insufficient, and considered land expansion to be a liability as it created more enemies. 

Thus, the 1973 Yom Kippur war was initiated by Egypt and Syria to capture the occupied territories that were lost during the 1967 war.

The ‘Deal of the Century’

If the Israeli occupation entity was directing American policy, the ‘Deal of the Century’ put forward by Trump, which legalized the annexations of 1967, in addition to the Jordan Valley, would have materialized decades ago [10]; especially during the 1970s and 80s when the Israeli occupation entity reached the peak of its might in territorial gain. It took a man like Trump whose outlook was not aligned with the American establishment, to put this theoretical proposal forward. This is something the Israeli occupation entity sought to achieve for decades but was unable to do so. The ‘two-state’ solution represented real American interests, as it reflected the true balance of forces on ground. This rhetoric returned to the forefront of American foreign policy with the Biden administration putting Trump’s proposal to rest [11].

The Abraham Accords

Moreover, another case study of America driving the Israeli occupation entity is the Abraham Accords. This was America’s effort to normalize the Israeli occupation entity with Arab countries, leading Morocco, Sudan, the UAE and Bahrain to form diplomatic ties [12]. 

America sought this within the context of its withdrawal from the region, to leave behind it a camp that could counteract the resistance axis and fulfill its interests. This includes curbing Russian and Chinese influence in the region, but most importantly turning the idea of resistance against occupation into a point of view. That is to say resistance would not be the default solution for occupation, and through normalization with the Israeli occupation entity, economic prosperity would be guaranteed. On the other hand, countries that resist normalization with the occupation would have to suffer economic warfare. Without the decision of America to move forward with the Abraham Accords under Trump, the Israeli occupation entity could not have fulfilled this long desired dream of normalization.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

A final case study is the negotiations between America and Iran in Vienna to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action [13]. Iran is an existential threat to the Israeli occupation entity as it not only does not recognize its right to exist foundationally [14], but it is also the lifeblood of the Palestinian resistance. Former head of the Quds Force,  Qa.ssem Soleimani, was the main coordinator between all the resistance factions and was the architect of the resistance tunnel networks in Gaza. Iran further provided all the funding, logistical, financial, and training support for the resistance in Gaza [15]. 

The idea of the West achieving compromise with Iran is a frightening reality for the Israeli occupation entity, because it would mean loss of its functional role as a military base confronting the Western adversaries in the region, and turn into a liability for Western interests. 

The West is headed into the inevitable direction of compromise, because it will eventually have no choice but to recognize the power balance on the ground, and to deal with forces of real action that represent the people in the region. The Israeli occupation entity would do anything to stop America going forward with the JCOPA, but if the former was in control of the latter, then they would successfully stand in the way of the JCOPA, but they have no power to do anything to stop it.

Imperialist-Zionist Relationship Today

The whole matter of the West standing in support of the Israeli occupation entity today is that it is their initiation project, and it is not strong enough to fulfill its functional role as a military base, nor to cover the size of the interests for America. The Israeli occupation entity will be held to account once the current confrontation ends, whereas America is seeking to end this confrontation with the least damage to their interests, and  securing some form of a military victory against the Gazan resistance. Killing a top commander of the Palestinian Resistance such as Saleh al-Arouri is an indication that the war will end soon as it will be titled a “military victory,” even if it is in the false sense. This was similarly seen with the United States’ strike on Ansarallah’s boats after which the US withdrew American ships.  The Israeli entity will call for a ceasefire once it gives up on this wish and thus will begin the political operation of bringing about a two state solution. 

America has gone from “The Deal of the Century,” that sought to dissolve the idea of a Palestinian State, to the two state solution. This itself is an admission to the shift in the power balance towards the resistance after October the 7th, and the weakness of the Israeli occupation entity to reverse the shift and maintain the upper hand. The two state solution will necessitate an end to the besiegement of Gaza. America understands that as long as Gaza is besieged, there will be more October the 7th style attacks [16]. However, the resistance is looking to liberate all of Palestine and the effects of October the 7th will show itself more in due time. 

Once the ceasefire comes into effect, the disintegration of the Israeli occupation entity will be clear.





If you value our journalism…

TMJ News is committed to remaining an independent, reader-funded news platform. A small donation from our valuable readers like you keeps us running so that we can keep our reporting open to all! We’ve launched a fundraising campaign to raise the $10,000 we need to meet our publishing costs this year, and it’d mean the world to us if you’d make a monthly or one-time donation to help. If you value what we publish and agree that our world needs alternative voices like ours in the media, please give what you can today.


  • Batool Subeiti

    Batool is an Energy Engineer and Political Analyst based in the United Kingdom who often writes on matters related to contemporary politics and social issues.

Back To Top