Why Israel threatens to shipwreck both American political parties

Escalating tensions in the Middle East have laid bare a significant bipartisan divide within American political circles, causing fractures that transcend party lines, with both Republicans and Democrats finding themselves on opposite sides of the chasm. The pressing question at hand—What to do about Israel?

Broadly speaking, it appears that Americans are split into six major camps regarding this issue. Imagine, if you will, that these camps exist on a spectrum, stretching from pro-Israel on the one end to pro-Iran/Hamas on the other. The first camp, rooted either in Judeo-Christian ethics, historic conservatism, or a liberal sense of fealty to one’s allies, fully backs Israel and its efforts to terminate Hamas. They believe that Israel should be permitted to conduct its war with Hamas on its own terms and that the U.S. should pledge its support. Of course, this doesn’t imply deploying our own troops to fight for them. Instead, it suggests providing financial and other forms of support to buttress the war-beset nation. The next camp agrees, at least ostensibly, that Israel ought to win the war, but they are less hawkish about their support, squeamish to stand behind a nation accused of genocide. The third camp, arguably the only exclusively—or, at least predominantly—right-wing faction, is certainly no fan of Hamas, but, because of vague overtures to an illy-defined and selectively-applied “America First,” isolationist ideology, believes that we cannot—or should not—support Israel too strongly because, in their words, “we have our own problems.”

Among those in this third category, many hold their beliefs with genuine sincerity and consistency. However, there are also those who appear to use this stance as a guise for promoting the blatant bigotry and hatred emblematic of the fourth group. This fourth camp—whatever they may think of foreign policy in the Middle East—is outright anti-Semitic—and they subsist on both sides of the aisle. These are the kind of people William F. Buckley Jr. crusaded to purge from the conservative movement in the 1980s and early 90s, as recounted in his iconic essay, “In Search of Anti-Semitism”; they may not always openly display their bigotry, yet they reveal it through relentless, inordinate, and duplicitous questioning of the Jews (à la Pat Buchanan) and innuendo. Eventually, this toxic stance bleeds over into the beliefs and principles of the fifth group, which openly defends Hamas and vilifies Israel as an oppressor nation. And finally, the sixth camp actively praises Iran, advocates for the downfall of Israel, and, of course, like the two groups before it, spews vehement Jew hatred.

Remarkably, this fault line within American society defies the typical bounds of partisan affiliation. Far from adhering to expected patterns, it presents a complex landscape—one that threatens to shipwreck both parties.

As I reflected in November, “Politics makes strange bedfellows…. Perhaps never before in my life has this been so true as when the far-left in America aligned with the patriarchal, viciously anti-LGBTQ+ (not to mention terrorist-infested) Gaza over Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, tactlessly [following] the former’s unprovoked and barbaric attack against the latter.”

Yet, this is not the sole instance of unexpected alliances being forged in the fires of the Middle East. While it may seem paradoxical for the American left to support Islamic fundamentalism, such an alignment isn’t entirely surprising. After all, figures from the far-left, including, most prominently, members of “The Squad,” have long championed the Palestinian cause. What is surprising, though, is to witness the right’s embrace of a similar stance.

This subsect of the right is split into three schools of thought—the Israel-is-fine-but-we-have-our-own-problems crowd, the Jews-control-everything troupe, and the Iran-is-awesome tribe. The first stance, if held consistently, is perfectly understandable, rooted in George Washington-esque non-interventionism (to be fair, Washington was not exactly what we today would term an “isolationist”; “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world,” he advised). Tragically, however, many one-time members of the America First league, who initially opposed military aid to Israel simply because—again, in their words—we should only care about American problems, are now openly attacking Israel, thereby violating the only reason they ever opposed Israel in the first place. That’s why I say America First principles must be applied consistently. It serves no purpose to claim indifference towards Israel, arguing that attention should solely be directed toward domestic matters, while simultaneously jetting around the globe to address other international issues.

Personally, I consider myself an America First interventionist, meaning I believe that being involved on the world stage, when carried out correctly, is in our best interest. As grassroots activist and leader Mark Meckler recently pointed out, “America is a nation, not a charity…. America’s purpose is not to advance the general welfare of the ‘world community’ or even its neighboring nations.” I wholeheartedly agree… and, in my opinion, our foreign policy should reflect that.

To some, that means we should turn a blind eye to Israel, refusing to hand her a dime. I disagree. While this position is understandable, I also believe it fundamentally misses the point of U.S. foreign aid. “Foreign aid is not the United States being wildly charitable,” asserted  political pundit Ben Shapiro. “It is not the United States randomly deciding to drop goody bags in poor parts of the world. It does not involve simply sending food to Somalia or something of that nature. When it comes to foreign aid, there are always strings attached.”

Historically, Shapiro’s analysis bears out. The United States does not court other nations at random. We court nations that we believe will advance our interests abroad and safeguard our security at home. And for over six decades, we have upheld a steadfast friendship with Israel precisely for that purpose. We must understand that opposition to this idea is largely rooted in the woke, progressive, anti-colonialist, and anti-American worldview. And as I previously wrote, “If Israel is a ‘colonizer’ nation that must be destroyed, then so, too, is the United States and virtually all of the West.”

Thankfully, polling confirms that, despite the severe six-camp divide, most Americans still possess the sanity to see that Israel is in the right and that Iran, Hamas, and the Iranian Axis of Resistance are in the wrong. Of course, this doesn’t imply unanimous agreement on whether America should allocate foreign aid for Israel (the isolationist versus interventionist question is an entirely separate debate). However, at least the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and pro-Iran sentiment has not yet deeply entrenched itself in American thought. Furthermore, this presents us with the unique opportunity to form a genuinely bipartisan coalition of support for our ally, friend, and canary in the coal mine.

“Americans understand the difference between Hamas and Israel,” Mark Meckler affirmed, “and that’s why they still support Israel over Hamas. The comparison isn’t hard: a Western-style liberal democracy over Islamic fundamentalists that want to destroy America and the entire West. Hmmm…not a hard choice for any thinking person.”