Letters to the Editor
-
Committed to an ally, yes. Unselfishly and unreasonably committed, no.
I understand the commitment to Israel as an ally since it is the single nation in the Middle East that is presumably loyal to the U.S. The reality is that Israel is loyal to Israel, first, last, and always. I find it difficult to understand why U.S. self-interest is joined at the hip of Israel's self-interest. Shouldn't U.S. interests come before that of Israel? Why is it in American interests to befriend Israel with billions of dollars of aid each year while spending virtually nothing on developing other mutually beneficial alliances in the Middle East.
Believing that Isreal's interests are more than self-interest is delusional. There wouldn't be a terrorist threat against the U.S. if it wisely placed its interests first, as well. If one needs proof that Israel considers its interests first, remember the navy ship named the Liberty, remember the incidents of Israeli spying on the U.S., think of a neocon who passed confidential U.S. information to AIPAC. Those are examples of Israel thinking of itself first. When will the U.S. begin operating in its interests first?
It's interesting that Michael Ledeen should coincidentally believe that Israel's enemies are also enemies of the U.S. The U.S. is not surrounded by enemies, yet, but if it takes the same posture as Israel, social exclusivity, it will be.