“America First.” That was the slogan. But sometimes, watching U.S. diplomacy, you wonder—first for what, exactly?
Tammy Bruce just said it out loud. The U.S. pulled out of UNESCO not because it lacked relevance, not because it overspent, but because it dared to criticize Israel. “Anti-Israel rhetoric,” she said, clashed with the “America First agenda.”
That sentence says a lot more than it should.
A Strange Kind of Loyalty
Let’s be clear: Israel is a close ally of the United States. Decades of military, economic, and political ties make that bond hard to untangle. But how many global institutions is America willing to abandon just to shield that relationship from scrutiny?
Take UNESCO. It’s the United Nations’ educational, scientific, and cultural agency. Its mission? Preserving cultural heritage, promoting global education, advocating for press freedom. It’s not a war council. Yet even here, the U.S. couldn’t tolerate criticism of Israel’s actions in occupied Palestinian territories—like recognizing Hebron’s old city as a World Heritage Site “in danger,” a move Israel found offensive.
Instead of pushing back diplomatically, Washington took the nuclear option: withdraw. That was 2017. And it wasn’t the first time—Reagan did it in the '80s. But this time, it felt different. It felt performative. As if U.S. foreign policy was being recalibrated through the lens of one regional ally’s sensitivities.
"America First" or “Israel Always”?
You ever wonder why the U.S. can so quickly freeze ties with WHO, pull funding from UNRWA, or walk out of UNESCO… but remains eternally tethered to Israel—no matter the cost?
Critics argue it’s not about anti-Israel bias. It’s about accountability. UN bodies often call out illegal settlements, house demolitions, or civilian casualties. Israel doesn’t like that. Fair enough. But why must Washington break with the entire world to defend it?
It’s like watching your friend get called out for shoplifting—and instead of helping them reflect, you punch the cashier and storm out of the store.
The Global Cost of a One-Sided Friendship
Here's what people usually miss: Every time the U.S. walks out of a global institution, it leaves a vacuum. And you know who fills it? China. Russia. Or any actor with a big checkbook and no qualms about rewriting the rules.
In 2023, when the U.S. rejoined UNESCO under Biden, it wasn’t just about diplomacy. It was a recognition that you can’t lead the world from the parking lot.
But the scars remain. Many nations now see America not as a neutral leader—but as a partisan actor with red lines drawn by Israeli politics. That erodes trust, alienates allies, and undermines the very “America First” vision that was supposed to restore U.S. strength.
So Whose Values Are We Defending?
Maybe it’s time to ask: Is criticizing Israel automatically anti-Semitic? Or is it possible—just maybe—that global institutions trying to uphold international law aren’t the enemy?
When America ties its global standing to the political sensitivities of one ally, it doesn’t project strength. It signals insecurity. And worse, it isolates itself from the very community it claims to lead.
In the end, the world isn’t mad at America for loving Israel. It’s just tired of watching that love come at everyone else’s expense.
But hey, what do I know? Maybe heritage sites aren’t worth the hassle.
Post a Comment