"The relationship between Israel and the US is not going well at all. President Obama has an agenda that is contrary to the best interests of Israel. I think his naivety about the Middle East is abysmal, and as a result he has put Israel on the defensive. He is responsible for souring the relationship."
This is the comment of a Jewish-American (note the continued hyphenated distinctions) concerning the current dispute between the Netanyahu government and ours, especially regarding Israel building settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. It appeared on the BBC web site as part of a survey of Israelis and visitors to Israel following the Prime Minister's visit to Washington.
The purpose of this diary is not to dispute the lady's opinion, but to look at it from the standpoint of the "American" part of the hyphen. First, is it the job of an American president to have an agenda which is in the best interests of Israel, or any other country, that isn't the United States of America? If an elected president takes actions he feels are in the best interests of the U.S., should he worry that they may put Israel "on the defensive?"
I remember when the State of Israel was formed, many Americans found themselves in sympathy with the desire of large numbers of persecuted Jews to have a homeland of their own in the face of British opposition. We applauded Golda Meir and admired the Israel army's success in the Six-Day War. We were not anti-Israel nor were we anti-Jewish. We were pro-underdog, as Americans often are.
At present, Israel has the best-armed and best-financed army in the MIddle East. It has nuclear weapons and is assisted by billions in aid from the United States. In exchange, it has sent spies to steal information from the American government, it has had diplomats kicked out of Britain for illegally using British passports for purposes of espionage and has repeatedly violated UN rules concerning settlements. By protesting these things, although it may be "contrary to the best interests of Israel," should we be condemned for "putting Israel on the defensive?"
Unfortunately, there are many Americans who have a lot of trouble separating church and state. I'm not speaking only of the fundamentalist Christians who want Congress to pass laws based on religious beliefs, but atheists and agnostics who want all mention of religion expunged from any government deliberation. The Constitution not only forbids laws establishing religion, but also those which prohibit the free exercise of religion. The idea of the United States forming a policy on Israel dependent on its religious beliefs is constitutionally wrong.
If a country does something contrary to the ideals of world peace, which the United States has claimed to adopt, then we have the duty to denounce it - as Vice-president Biden and Secretary of State Clinton have done. The least we can do is not allow taxpayers' money to help further those actions.
We have pledged allegiance to only one flag - the United States of America. We owe Israel nothing more or less than our good wishes and wise counsel - the same as we expect of them. We do not have any duty to act in the bests interests of any other country if it isn't in the best interests of - us.