AMERICA FIRST: Six reasons Trump would be disaster for U.S. Jews, Israel and the Middle East. “U.S. Jews” barely make an appearance in this analysis. Maybe the Israeli author is suggesting that Trump would be a “disaster” for them so long as they identify with Israel rather than the United States of America.

Trump’s new foreign policy approach is based on the United States making “good deals” and getting “paid back” for protection or intervention abroad. This would end the U.S. “getting screwed over” by having to do the rest of the world’s work for them. It’s several steps away from the familiar American traditions of neoconservative or liberal interventionist policy. As part of this U.S. Interests First approach, he has regularly called for letting Putin, Assad and ISIS fight it out in Syria.

How horrible. Under President Trump, fewer Americans will die fighting on behalf of Israeli interests.

Donald Trump has shown no ideological underpinnings, other than “making America great again,” that would ensure he would support Israel in tough times. . . . He feels no nostalgia for backing up strategic allies [i.e., nations on behalf of which America pledges to send men to their deaths] of half-a-century’s standing: “If somebody attacks Japan, we have to immediately go and start World War III, OK? If we get attacked, Japan doesn’t have to help us. Somehow, that doesn’t sound so fair. Does that sound good?” Trump said. Israel’s fate in terms of its military and strategic dependence on the U.S. would be subject to a kind of erratic opportunism.

“Opportunism” — meaning American foreign policy might actually be oriented toward what’s good for America.

Granted, this analysis appears in an Israeli newspaper. It only makes sense that Israelis would be concerned with their own interests. But what excuse do American politicians have?

“Let me be clear,” Cruz said. “If I’m president, America will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel. … I have over and over again led the fight to defend Israel, to fight for Israel. And this — if you want to know who will stand with Israel, we ought to start with who has stood with Israel when the heat was on.”

Marco Rubio was similarly adamant. “The next president of the United States needs to be someone like me who will stand firmly on the side of Israel,” he said. “I’m not going to sit here and say, ‘Oh, I’m not on either side.’ I will be on a side. I will be on Israel’s side every single day.”

Contrast this sentiment with the position put forth by the first America First president, George Washington, in his Farewell Address: [archive]

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. . . .

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. . . .

A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils.