Thanks for your follow-up. This was an interesting find. I remember I came across the website if Americans Knew a while ago but it was still under construction. I thought the article started to answer my question: why must American administrations inherit the special relationship with Israel? I always believed that the answer boiled down to the battle for constituents. A process necessitated by the nature of American democracy. A process that can be morally defective and which consequences can fire up extreme problems in the future. In the case of America, Truman had to win over the Jewish constituency to reach office which cost him weakened relationships with the Arab states. Eventually his approach had to be inherited by every president candidate in order to gain constituents, and once president must deliver the promise of supporting Israel. Of course if the Arab community in America exceeded the Zionist counterpart, things would have been reversed. Candidates would find themselves battling to win over American Arab voters who could ask for promises to strengthen the interest of their home countries. I am quoting below what the article has to briefly say:
In the late 1800s a small, fanatic movement called “political Zionism” began in Europe. Its goal was to create a Jewish state somewhere in the world. Its leaders settled on the ancient and long-inhabited land of Palestine for the location of this state.
Palestine's population at this time was approximately ninety-six percent non-Jewish (primarily Muslim and Christian).
Over the coming decades Zionist leaders used various strategies to accomplish their goal of taking over Palestine:
1. Encouraging Jewish immigration to Palestine, partly through the invention of such deceptive slogans as "a land without a people for a people without a land," when, in fact, the land was already inhabited. Since the majority of Jews were not Zionists until after WWII, Zionists used an array of misleading strategies, including secret collaboration with the Nazis, to push immigration.
2. Convincing a “Great Power” to back this process. By turn, Zionists approached the Ottomans, the British, and the U.S. to further their cause. While the Ottomans turned them down, the British (being promised that American Zionists would push the U.S. to enter World War I on the side of England) eventually acceded, as did the U.S. (due to concerns of politicians like Harry Truman that they would lose elections otherwise). [see references below]
3. Buying up the land (sometimes through subterfuges), proclaiming it Jewish for all eternity, and refusing to allow non-Jews to live or work on the purchased land. This was called "redeeming" the land and was financed by a variety of means, including by such wealthy banking families as the Rothschilds.
4. Violence, if such financial dispossession should fail or prove too slow – as it did.
Notes regarding 2:
A number of factors were used to convince Britain, several having to do with assisting it to win the war if it promised to assist Zionists:
Mulhall, p. 62: “Britain was also trying to coax America into the war....in 1937 Lloyd George told the Palestine Royal (peel) Commission: ‘Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestinbe, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.’”
Robert John, Sami Hadawi, The Palestine Diary 1914-1945, p. 72: quoting Samuel Landman, a leader of the Zionist-Revisionists, in the review “World Jewry”: “...it was resolved to send a secret message to Justice Brandeis that the British Cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine in return for active Jewish sympathy and for support in the U.S.A. for the Allied cause, so as to bring about a radical pro-Ally tendency in the United States.’”
Regarding the US: Many writers have discussed the electoral role in Truman’s assistance to Zionism, e.g.:
Mulhall, p. 131: “In November, four heads of U.S. diplomatic missions in Arab states met with Truman and warned him that his pro-Zionist statements threatened U.S. interests. He reportedly replied, I’m sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism; I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”
Mulhall: p. 65, “Wilson therefore decided to risk harming U.S. relations with Turkey rather than alienate a powerful segment of his own political constituency.
Decision on Palestine, Evan N. Wilson, Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1979: Wilson was a retired foreign service officer with thirty years’ experience, much of it involved with Israel-Palestine. He provides considerable valuable information, e.g.:
“That the President’s [Truman’s] action was politically motivated was the thrust of a column by James Reston which appeared in the New York Times for October 7 under the heading “Truman’s Palestine Plea Flouted Foreign Advisors.” Reston wrote that domestic politics were responsible for the President’s appeal. This interpretation is borne out by the fact that the President received letters from a number of prominent Democrats, such as Representative Emmanuel Celler, commending him for having made his appeal and predicting that it would be of material help to the party in the forthcoming elections.” (p. 98)
“The files of the Truman Library show that Truman’s Yom Kippur statement was drafted primarily by Eliahu Epstein (later Elath), the Washington representative of the Jewish Agency.”