"Israel is of no greater fundamental importance than say, the eastern Congo, the Sudan or Bangladesh (a nation that will soon in fact be driven into the sea)."

It depends what you mean by "importance" - certainly, U.S. planners have for decades considered a powerful, expansionist Israel a useful "strategic asset" in the most strategically important region on the planet. Hence the support successive U.S. governments have given and continue to give to Israeli expansionism.

It is true that the "Holocaust weapon", along with the "anti-Semitism" card, has been used to help stifle criticism of Israel, but I think it's a mistake to explain U.S. policy towards Israel in terms of just this. While such tactics have undoubtedly helped create and sustain public sympathy for Israel (although polls show that most Americans feel that current U.S. policy is overly biased in favour of Israel, and want the U.S. government to "avoid taking sides" in the conflict), U.S. support for Israel is a product fundamentally of a perception among U.S. elites that a strong, militaristic client state in Middle East serves their interests.

The Heathlander