Interesing debate going on with Sullivan, Daniel Larison and some others, regarding the role of Israel in our decision to invade Iraq, and the push to attack Iran. Indeed, Joe Klein actually uses the term “divided loyalties” in reference to the neocons, though Larison thinks that’s a bit much - suggesting instead something we hit on in last week’s print piece:

The problem is not one of divided loyalties, as if Israeli interests are being put first and American interests second, but the mistake of seeing the interests of both states as largely or entirely complementary and almost identical.

I think that’s absolutely correct, and hear versions of it all the time. If the chief reason neocons want to take a swing at Iran is related to nukes, the second reason is because Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth!

Well, perhaps, but: Israel is not the United States. And that message just doesn’t seem to compute with some folks.

This isn’t a matter of divided loyalties, rather a belief amongst the neocons that the interests of Israel are somehow indistinguishabble from the interests of the United States, and vice versa. Obviously, as we said last week, Israel is an ally and we thus have an obligation to stand with Israel should it be attacked by Iran; but the notion that we ought to wage pre-emptive war at least in part on Israel’s behalf goes too far.

Writes Larison: “I don’t think we should be fighting wars even partly for other countries and I don’t think we should be starting wars at all.” Emphasis added.

There’s obviously a case to be made that what’s good for Israel is good for the U.S., in that any diminunition of the power/appeal of radical Islamism could help calm the region, even/especially in terms of economics or oil. And the special place Israel occupies in the world of religious conservatives also reinforces this belief that the best way to stand by our ally is to wage preemptive war on behalf of that ally.

 But like Larison, I also reject any suggestion that we ought to be fighting wars on behalf of other countries, even partly. If our Mideast policy ultimately benefits Israel or any other nation in that region, then fine. But an attempt to attain those benefits should not be part of the calculus when we sit down to craft our policy; Israel is not the United States. Maybe if we say it often enough, the message will finally get through.