And he felt the anti-Israel simoom blowing in from the left. Time to keep his distance from the Jewish state, he figured, or even to move farther away, since all the progressive people, the people whose support he covets are doing it, and Rahm Emanuel has spent his life aiming to please as he slithered up the greasy pole of politics. It’s worked so well for him, so why should he change his modus operandi now?
He has just announced to the world that “Israel should be treated like every other ally.” Micha Danzig takes apart that remark here: “Rahm Emanuel’s Call to Treat Israel ‘Like Every Other Ally’ Gets History Wrong,” by Micha Danzig, Algemeiner, May 12, 2026:
Rahm Emanuel’s recent declaration that Israel should henceforth be treated “like every other ally” was not serious strategic analysis. It was the sound of a longtime Democratic operative adjusting himself to the increasingly radicalized gravitational pull of his party’s anti-Israel wing.
The same political ecosystem now mainstreaming figures like Hasan Piker — a man who declared that “America deserved 9/11” and routinely traffics in hateful anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda to millions — is steadily dragging Democratic rhetoric on Israel into territory that would have been politically radioactive even a decade ago.
Like others making similar arguments, Emanuel’s slogan collapses under even minimal historical scrutiny.
When looking at the evidence, it’s clear that Israel is already treated unlike many American allies.
First, some allies, like NATO members, are entitled to American military protection and defense if they are attacked. When Israel fights wars, Israelis fight them. That distinction matters enormously. Yet people like Rahm speak as though Israel is uniquely coddled rather than uniquely self-reliant.
Emanuel — who somehow served as ambassador to Japan while apparently learning little from the experience about how American alliances actually work — recently stated that the US should stop “subsidizing” Israel’s military and stop providing “financial aid” through the Memorandum of Understanding framework, and that Israel should instead simply “buy what they want” like every other ally.
The aid framework Rahm now caricatures as “subsidies” and “financial aid” was never an act of American charity. It emerged from strategic bargains and overlapping interests that benefited Washington enormously.
A major turning point in that strategic bargain came in the 1980s with Israel’s Lavi fighter project — an ambitious domestically developed fighter program that many in Washington feared could become a genuine export competitor to the F-16.
American pressure to terminate the program was immense because, contrary to today’s woke-right and far-left parody of the alliance, Washington was not interested in an Israeli aerospace rival competing with American defense giants globally.
Under that pressure, Israel closed the program.
The result was deeper Israeli integration into American military platforms and supply chains — strengthening American aerospace dominance while locking Israel more tightly into the American defense ecosystem.
In other words, the architecture Rahm now dismisses as though it were unilateral charity did not emerge because Washington was engaged in philanthropy for Jews. It emerged because American policymakers concluded that the arrangement benefited the United States strategically, militarily, technologically, and industrially….
Israel battle-tests many American weapons, and its success in using them gives a tremendous boost to international sales of those weapons. Israel also comes up with its own weapons that America then puts in its own arsenal. These include the Iron Dome and laser-based Iron Beam anti-missile systems.
Israeli scientists have made improvements to American weapons, from tanks (the Trophy Active Protection System) to planes (the F-351 Adir), many of which the Pentagon then installs on its own weapons. No other ally of the United States has been of such military value. Israel does not have treaties of defense with the U.S. as do Japan and Korea; nor is America committed to come to Israel’s defense in case of an attack on the Jewish state, the way it is obligated to do for all members of NATO (including even Turkey). Rahm Emanuel doesn’t understand.
As Micha Danzig shows — see above — when Rahm says Israel should be treated “like every other ally,” he ignores the fact that Israel receives less benefits from, and provides many more benefits to, the U.S. than do its “other allies” in NATO and East Asia.
Wellington says
Emanuel is just another symptom of an ever increasing odious cause. That cause is the transformation of the Democratic Party into an enemy of moral intelligence, common sense and virtually all that has been right about America since its inception.
If by now one cannot see that the Democratic Party has become an enemy of America, that person is deficient in the extreme. Might as well claim that Islam is not an enemy of America.
And for all those who still think the Democratic Party can come back to merely being wrong about certain policies rather than being a mortal threat to America, I say to all of them you might as well think that Islam can be reformed and made compatible with concepts of liberty and equality under the law.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
There are very good reasons for the US to abandon NATO. For one, Russia is not the Arab states, much less “Palestine”. That relationship has been mismanaged since the end of the Cold War, and the few things NATO did – intervening in Kosovo and Libya – ended up making things worse! And the few things they did do – like loaning peacekeepers in Afghanistan – is something that hardly did US any good, since they were seen as an occupying force. Most recently, in this war against the islamic republic, NATO has been unwilling to give the US a unqualified support
That’s why Trump was completely justified recently when he called for a withdrawal from NATO. I know that this is a negotiating ploy of his, but I actually prefer this to using it as a way to squeeze them for them to pay their fair share. Important as it is, money isn’t the main reason we should withdraw: we should withdraw b’cos this alliance doesn’t make sense for US, and is a drag on our time & attention, among other things. We need to shore up the Americas, where countries keep switching b/w Left & Right, and we need to contain Beijing in the Indo-Pacific
So Europe needs to take care of itself, and if none of its members can be bothered to have a military as strong as Turkey’s (which has its own geopolitical designs), it”s not our job to bail them. Also, Russia is not a threat to them – they’ve learned the hard way from Ukraine, and while those muslim migrants are a threat, the EU doesn’t see them that way. So there’s nothing we can do to protect them
As for Israel, they’re not asking for troops. They’re asking for weapons which are paid for by aid that Israel has to spend specifically on US military suppliers. But Israel knows that it has to become self-sufficient, since there’s no guarantee that the US won’t have a President AOC or Carlson or Vance or someone pretty hostile to Jerusalem. To that end, they’re working on it. So yeah, once that arrangement is done, Israel should break free of the US and follow whatever is in its own interests, be it annexing Judea/Samaria, resuming the war in Iran, moving completely into Gaza…. and not give a rat’s hiney about what foreign policy establishment types in DC think, or even what the author of “The Art of the Deal” thinks
WPM says
JD Vance is not on Israel hate level or for kissing Islamic ass as AOC or Carlson .Both Carlson and AOC are calling people who call for pogroms good people , both are breaking breaking bread with , also interviewing and backing jihadist .The chances of JD Vance being the next republican candidate in the 2028 presidential election is very high. If you can sight examples of JD Vance supporting jihadist or speaking of not backing Israel do so .If you can spot open hostility with JD Vance between Rubio’s or Trumps position on Israel do so. To lump the possible next republican president ,if something happens to Trump before 2028 in the same boat as Carlson or AOC is an insult to common sense. The rest of what you posted I agree 100 percent.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
JD Vance is one of the people who opposed entering a war w/ Iran. Which might have been fine on its own, but once we started, him being one of the negotiators w/ the islamic regime depending on who the IRGC sent doesn’t look good on him. He would not have been picked as a negotiator had he been one of the hawks on this war, like say, Hegseth
I don’t think that Vance is anti-Israel, but I do think that Tucker has enough influence on him that he’d end US support to Israel if elected. Or at least, it’ll be at the same levels that it was under the Bushes. Fact remains that to this day, the people who have parted company w/ Trump over this issue – Tucker, MTG, Megyn Kelly, Matt Walsh, et al, have not abandoned Vance. Reason being that they anticipate that his policies would be similar to what they advocate
I do have an open mind on Vance, but I do conclude a lot about a politician based on the people who support him/her