But if their existence is somehow important to us, you'd think their existence would be even more important to themselves. And if our support of them makes their existence possible, then you'd think they'd owe it to us to keep us happy, not vice versa. And if our support isn't necessary for their existence and they're doing us a favor by accepting our support, then perhaps we should stop supporting them. That seems fairly obvious to me.
So I fail to understand why we need to be so concerned with keeping them happy. As I've said in the past, Israel is its own country with its own interests and that we should support them only as far as it benefits us. And that's their policy towards us too, so that shouldn't be a shocking thing to say. Yet all the same, the conventional wisdom seems to be that we not only need to support Israel, but also make them happy. It's as if they're the ones with all the power, instead of us.
And that's how you end up with idiotic columns in Newsweek suggesting that Obama send Bush to the middle-east as an envoy, based entirely on his ability to make Israel happy. But of course, the reason he made them happy is because he did stupid stuff we don't want Obama to do. And if he did what Obama wants him to do, Bush would be just as unpopular as anyone else we send. And as Carpetbagger pointed out, the real purpose of the article was probably to suggest that Obama be more like Bush and appease Israel; as if that worked out for us. And again, I fail to understand the logic of that.
If our support is required for their existence, then it's more important to them that we support them than it is to us. And that means they need to make US happy, not vice versa. That's how the game is played. I just wish the idiots at Newsweek understood that. Powerful nations shouldn't kowtow to their weaker allies, even if they are BFF's.