Saturday, March 07, 2026
The Making and Unraveling of the American–Israeli Alliance
Suspicion, Integration, and Postwar Transformation
The history of Jews in the United States stretches back to the seventeenth century. Yet for much of that history, Jews were viewed with suspicion and faced various forms of discrimination. Antisemitic organizations operated openly, and social exclusion remained common well into the twentieth century.
The turning point came after World War II, which ended in 1945. Antisemitism became discredited by its association with the Nazi enemy. At the same time, Jewish participation in the U.S. armed forces brought millions of American soldiers into direct contact with Jewish fellow citizens, replacing inherited prejudice with personal familiarity. In the decades that followed, Jews became increasingly visible in American public life — culturally, academically, and politically — expressing their identity more openly than had been possible before the war.
In the 1950s and 1960s, Jewish participation was highly visible in the civil rights movement and in efforts to dismantle racial segregation. While that visibility came at a cost, as Jewish activists were targeted by white supremacists in the American South, involvement in the struggle against racism continued. Jewish voices were also prominent in opposition to the Vietnam War, to the point that U.S. President at the time, Lyndon Johnson, reportedly expressed frustration with what he perceived as strong Jewish opposition, contrasting it with support for Israel.
By the mid-1960s, American Jews were largely integrated into the fabric of American society. Yet integration alone did not automatically translate into a deep strategic bond between Washington and Jerusalem. Israel was not regarded as a close ally under either the Eisenhower or the Kennedy administrations, as both were suspicious of the former Prime Minister of Israel, Ben-Gurion, and generally maintained a cool posture toward Israel.
1967: The Strategic and Emotional Turning Point
The Six-Day War in 1967 between Israel and a coalition of Arab countries, primarily Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, marked a decisive turning point.
At a moment when the United States was mired in Vietnam and facing expanding Soviet influence in Europe and the Middle East, Israel defeated Soviet-backed Arab armies in just six days. The speed and scale of that victory reshaped perceptions in Washington. Israel was no longer viewed primarily as a vulnerable state seeking protection, but as a capable regional power that had effectively rolled back Soviet influence in the Middle East.
At the same time, 1967 transformed the emotional landscape of American Jewry. For many American Jews, the war produced a new sense of affinity and belonging to Israel. What had previously been a distant state became central to communal identity. This shift strengthened political support and deepened the sense that Israel’s fate and American Jewish identity were interconnected.
Geopolitical alignment and communal identification now reinforced one another. The alliance was anchored not only in strategic calculation, but in a broad American perception of shared interests and shared values.
Fractures Within and Beyond the Jewish Community
We are now witnessing the beginning of an erosion of this alliance. The war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon over the past two decades have fractured the American perception of shared culture and shared principles. The assumption of automatic moral alignment has weakened.
This fracture first became visible within parts of the American Jewish community, particularly among younger Jews, where identification with Israel is no longer as instinctive or unquestioned as it once was. From there, it has extended, and continues to extend, into broader American society, especially among younger voters.
From National Consensus to Political Polarization
On the surface, with the US and Israel waging a joint war against Iran, the alliance appears strong, but in the current war with Iran, Israel is increasingly seen as dragging the United States into conflicts that are not its own, wars that serve the interests of Israel and its hardline government. Polls indicate that only 25 percent of Americans supported the war in its early days.
In the minds of many Americans, this war has become closely associated with two political figures: Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Both are deeply polarizing figures, particularly among younger voters, who have faced, and in different ways continue to face, corruption allegations or legal scrutiny. That association shapes how Israel itself is perceived by the people of its top supporter.
Netanyahu’s efforts to weaken judicial constraints within Israel, his reliance on far-right coalition partners, and the racist tone adopted by some members of his government sit uneasily with the democratic image that once underpinned the American–Israeli alliance. For liberal American Jews, whose communal memory includes fighting segregation, racism, and authoritarian tendencies in the 1950s and 1960s, this alignment is especially jarring.
The Narrowing Base: Christian Zionism
Perhaps the clearest sign of the weakening American–Israeli alliance is the growing reliance of parts of the American political system on Christian Zionist support. This represents a narrowing of the alliance’s base.
Christian Zionism is rooted in a literalist reading of the Bible and an apocalyptic understanding of history. At its theological core, it is not a pro-Jewish doctrine but a framework in which Jewish sovereignty serves a Christian eschatological narrative. The ultimate horizon of that narrative is not Jewish continuity, but conversion or destruction. Its support for Israel is therefore instrumental, embedded in a prophecy-driven vision of the end of days.
The Alliance’s Foundation Has Eroded
The American–Israeli alliance was strongest when it rested on two pillars: broad American public support and affinity for Israel on the one hand, and the perception that the alliance served U.S. interests and advanced American goals on the other. Today, we may be witnessing a rapid unraveling of that foundation. Israel is no longer viewed as positively in the United States as it once was. The destruction of Gaza has left many Americans either opposed to Israel or ambivalent toward it. The war with Iran is widely seen as not clearly advancing core U.S. interests.
The two pillars that have supported the alliance since 1967 have begun to crack. Alliances endure when they command wide civic legitimacy; they weaken when they become tied to polarizing leaders, partisan identity, or narrowing ideological bases. What was made through the convergence of perception and interest may now be coming undone through misalignment.
(this article first appeared on EgyptianStreets.
Sunday, June 06, 2021
Why I Left The Most Successful Clubhouse Room
Dialogue has been my chosen form of activism for a long time. Soon after I joined Clubhouse in early 2021. The live voice aspects of Clubhouse made it ideal, but the nature of people drifting in and out of rooms has also made it a tougher medium to navigate, after a few difficult sessions, I found my bearings.
Then Sheikh Jarrah happened and shortly after a full on war started. Palestinian and Israeli friends asked me to help co-moderate Meet Palestinians & Israelis room, I did! The room kept going round the clock for over two weeks and broke records in terms of number of unique listeners and average numbers of hours spent. The room lasted for over two weeks, but I left it on day 8. Leaving a dialogue effort that I helped build was not an easy decision and I’m not sure it was the right decision, but I will share below the factors that led me to part ways with the room.
1. Public Diplomacy: few days into the room, a new theme emerged by some of the comoderators advocating that the room is acting as a platform for public diplomacy. I view dialogue to be distinct from negotiations and diplomacy. The only purpose for dialogue is hearing the other and getting the other to hear you. Dialogue may not have any other purpose. Moreover, the history of the Palestinian struggle in particular is dominated by the issue who has the right to negotiate in the name of the Palestinians. The label of public diplomacy would act as way to stifle dialogue.
2. There was pressure to ask people to have a picture and reveal their identity through social media profiles. I rejected this approach and never followed it whenever I moderated. I found it biased against people who disapprove of using photos on religious grounds, or people who fear identifying their locations and identities for whatever reason. I viewed this as an effort to silence pro Palestinian voices.
3. There were attempts to challenge the identity of a Palestinian doctor speaking from Gaza. I hosted the very same young doctor, while I disagreed with some of the points he made, I had no reason at all to doubt his identity. I saw no effort to verify the identities of others who gave their own personal stories. Again I disapproved of the uneven handling.
4. While I don’t claim to know all there’s to know about the history of the conflict, I have spent many years reading and researching the various aspects of the conflict. I have accumulated a degree of knowledge of the competing narratives. This has equipped me as a moderator to push back on extremist discourse and to center the discussions on true dialogue rather than what I see as propaganda. The straw that broke the camel back and made me decide to leave was what I felt were attempts to silence me, by different means.
I don’t want the above to detract from my support and admiration for the whole effort. And I understood then and understand now that as the guns were silenced the war continued on using the tools of propaganda. I’m happy that my friends who started the effort originally were eventually successful in wresting back control of the project.
Ultimately dialogue is about talking to and listening to the other, to the enemy, to a side that hold radically different views. Dialogue is about promoting understanding of the other, not agreement with other. Is it useful? I think it is but I accept that many others refuse it.
Ayman S. Ashour
Thursday, February 12, 2015
On Hate Crimes, War Crimes and Terrorism
Words and classifications help us understand the many events before us. In the Middle East especially, words are of extreme importance and people often get stuck on words as we attempt to make sense of a the chaos that has become the norm the region is living through. The word terrorist is used to describe violence, that many times people identify with its perceived causes. The Palestinian struggle for freedom and dignity, along with the underlying hate for Israel and racist hate of Jews often expressed as hate for Zionism but not Jews, are primary examples where millions of people find the label terrorist applied to acts they either understand, justify or actively support.Was the Chapel Hill tragedy terrorism? Linguistically speaking because it frightens people, for it is terrifying indeed to see people getting killed, so in a way we can see the link to the word terror. Yes it aimed to terrify the Muslim and Arab American community of course, so there can be an argument for application of the terrorist label. However, I see the label Hate Crime, here, carrying far more weight than terrorism, for in terrorism the choice of victims is often arbitrary, accidental where, the very deliberate nature of this heinous crime was no accident. An hate crime, the deliberate selection of three beautiful young people at the prime of their lives, this is hate, in its worst and ugliest form, perpetrated by a human being whose heart and brain were blinded with bigotry. The ugly killer did not aim to change government policy, nor did he have an obvious political goal, he simply aimed to exterminate those he hated. This is a hate crime and to call it anything else would lessen its ugliness.
Ayman S. Ashour
Sunday, August 03, 2014
The War Against Palestine
Sunday, November 18, 2012
They hate us!
Their hate blinds them so much they just want to wipe us, all of us, out!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Farting Against Thunder

It is a crude British expression, but I can’t shake the image it creates as I think of Gaza. Not only is it a crude expression, it is inappropriate in many important ways. Flatulence may be offensive but it’s generally harmless. Yet the Hamas rockets are more than just offensive, they kill and maim and, no doubt, cause fear, panic and nightmares. Moreover, Hamas rockets are not just innocent or involuntary flatulence, they are deliberate creations that people work very hard to produce, move and launch. Many die for their sake; these are not just simple farts! The rockets are aptly named Qassam, after a man who spent his life in futile fighting and who played a hand in planting seeds of hate beyond his declared targets. Qassam was fighting everyone and everywhere and was engaged in killing innocent civilians; just as his namesake rockets do today.
The image of thunder is also inappropriate. Thunder is not manmade, it is an act of God and it surely is indiscriminate in its effect. Indeed, conspiracy theorists in the Middle East absolve the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular of all blame by assigning almost God-like qualities to Israel and the USA. Much like Saddam was said to have invaded Kuwait because the US made him do it, or that Hezbollah was forced into starting the 2006 war in Lebanon by Israel’s manipulation, or that Hamas massacred Fateh in Gaza as part of an Israeli plot to justify the ensuing blockade and misery. The all-powerful USA and Israel are always scheming and plotting and Egyptians, Palestinians, Lebanese or Arabs have no will of their own and merely play their pre ordained role in the theater with Israeli directors and American producers.
What makes the image stick in my mind are the parallels in terms of scale. Thunder is infinitely more powerful than mere flatulence, so as I listened yesterday to the very articulate Bibi Netanyahu recounting the number of rockets to justify the massive Israeli retaliation, I thought that the sheer tonnage of explosives is a much more appropriate measurement rather than just mere numbers. The explosives on all of the Hamas and Jihad rockets over the last ten years may not add up to just one hour of Israeli bombings. Thunder is an act of God, which does not discriminate, so the young innocent helpless sisters and many others are slaughtered by the brutal thunder. The rockets are in a peculiar way similar to flatulence, they damage those around them more than those far from them. They must, however, make the Hamas operatives feel better after they release them.

With nearly 400 people dead, thousands injured and perhaps two million people living days on end in terrible anxiety and fear, would such a silly little expression be appropriate even to think about let alone to write about and share? How can this horrible suffering go on and on and all we get is the same as we’ve seen over the last sixty years? More condemnations of Israel, more arguments from Israel about self defense and more cruel tales of the thousands of innocent civilians being mere collateral damage? Israel: the rockets are awful granted, and they should be condemned, but at what price of Palestinian blood are you willing to stop to eliminate the rockets? Would a thousand dead Palestinians children be too much to eliminate the Qassams for one month? Why only one month? Because surely they will come again! How much cruelty on ordinary people will you dish out to punish Hamas?
For Americans and for the USA, how can we tolerate sitting in silence, witnessing such horror, such massacre? Is this the kind of self defense we had in mind when we supplied Israel with a huge arsenal of deadly weapons? Does Israel need our latest technology for this? What ratio of innocent civilian to Hamas fighter deaths are we unwilling to accept? Haven’t we finally learnt in Iraq that we save more of our troops by working harder to protect the ordinary people?
And Hamas, how many dead Palestinian children is it worth for you to keep launching rockets? Do you want all Gazans to suffer so your fighters can savor the joy of killing one or two Israeli kids every month? Is the total destruction of Gaza and the killing and maiming of thousands of Palestinians worth it, so that you can just carry on with your rockets?
December 31, 2008
AA
Tuesday, December 11, 2001
Land of Blood and Agony
….. and the cycle goes on
Sharon feels justified in going after Hamas as perpetrators of terror;
the killing of the Palestinian children is just an unfortunate collateral damage
Hamas feels that killing the Israeli kids is also a collateral damage … in a just struggle against the occupation
Sharon argues the occupation is crucial for protecting the security … of the Israelis
and Hamas believes Israel can never have security as long as Palestinians are not allowed back to their homes and farms,
and Israelis feel this ……
and Palestinians feel that ...
and Hamas feels ...
Meanwhile more kids will never grow up,
will die before they can love
before they can live ..
will just be plain extinguished in a horrible game of hate ….counter hate and more hate…
…a game of political one-upmanship played by adults who have had their full sorry lives to live …
and deny the poor kids even a chance at a sorry life, ... acceptable collateral damage …that's all, that's all!
(1991 - 2001)
buried here Collateral Ben Damage
a.k.a. Collateral Ibin Damage
Killed accidentally by Hamas trying to kill Sheikh Sharon
Killed accidentally by Sharon trying to kill Hamas
..Rest In Peace …
… in this Land of blood & agony…
….rest
AA
December 11, 2001


