Why One Cannot Be a Dual Nationalist

In 2024, President Donald Trump brought an unprecedented and diverse coalition of libertarians, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, and right-wing populists of all sorts together at the ballot box. However, after only about a year into the second Trump administration, this coalition has begun to fall apart. The current “right-wing civil war” is a result of disparate opinions within the American right on government transparency in regards to the Epstein scandal, the affordability crisis, the national debt, and, perhaps most disparate of all, foreign policy.

Indeed, younger Americans, including Republicans, have soured on Israel. In fact, polls indicate that half of Republican voters under the age of 50 have a negative view of Israel with just 24% of Republican voters ages 18-34 sympathizing more with Israelis than Palestinians. However, while numerous conservative figures like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene have criticized Israel’s influence and conduct in the current war, President Trump has been the “most pro-Israel President in history.”

Trump joined Israel in the Twelve-Day War and provided the Netanyahu government with billions of dollars worth of military support. Domestically, Trump has not been any better, empowering interventionist politicians including Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Randy Fine. President Trump has insisted that he is ‘America First’ yet has repeatedly erred on the side of ‘Israel First.’ This begs the question: can one coherently be a nationalist for several nations? The answer is a resounding no.

The contradiction of being a nationalist for multiple nations is inherent in the definition of nationalism itself. Nationalism is defined as an “ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.” The phrase “America First,” coined in the 1850s, but outlined by the America First Committee (AFC) in the early 20th century, was coined in opposition to foreign entanglements which did not promote the geostrategic interests of the United States. Zionism denotes the same for Israel. Zionism, synonymous with Jewish nationalism, is simply the philosophy of nationalism applied to the modern nation-state of Israel. Simply put, to be a Zionist is to champion the interests of Israel before that of any other nation, to put “Israel First.”

One may object, arguing that insofar as the interests of Israel and the United States, or any other country, can converge, one can be a nationalist for both countries simultaneously. A hypothetical can be admitted where this is the case, but it does not test for nationalism, which is by definition exclusive. For example, a congressman like Randy Fine and a pundit like Laura Loomer can advocate America First domestic policies such as mass deportations and still fail to meet the definition of 'American nationalist.' The litmus test for American nationalism is not support for particular policies that benefit America without respect to any other nation, but support for particular policies that benefit America distinctly when they prove costly to another nation. Nationalism is a particularist phenomenon, and as such, there is no nationalism in general—only nationalism for one nation or people or another. Nationalism, then, is not tested when the interests of nations align, but when they diverge. Test cases, where the interests of one nation clash with another, reveal the nationalist persuasions of individuals where they would otherwise go uncommunicated. Nationalism is only actually tested when interests are mutually exclusive.

A clear example of a test case concerning Israel and the United States is the instance of Jonathan Pollard. Jonathan Pollard was an American citizen who spied for the Israeli government. Pollard gave the Israelis top secret information regarding Soviet weaponry and information on Middle Eastern nuclear programs. This information was clearly useful to the Israelis, but came at the clear expense of the US. In fact, the information that Israel gained “is so vast and damaging, the complete list of files is itself top secret.” Many Americans, including prominent Neoconservatives like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, opposed releasing Pollard. Nevertheless, Jewish-Americans like Alan Dershowitz, Henry Kissinger, and Zionist billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, demanded his release.

In 1998, President Clinton faced intense pressure to pardon Pollard, including with alleged blackmail threats from Netanyahu over his affair with Lewinsky, but ultimately refused. Eventually, Pollard was granted parole in 2015 under President Obama. Under Donald Trump in 2020, Pollard’s parole restrictions expired. Upon his release, he was given a hero’s welcome on the tarmac in Ben Gurion Airport by Netanyahu. At the time, only 32% of likely US voters favored the release. As the case of Pollard shows, it is impossible to be both an American nationalist and a Zionist. When the interests of nations clash, only one can come out on top. The side which one favors exposes their particular flavor of “nationalism.” If one sides with Israel when the interests of the US and Israel contradict, even if they generally support policies associated with “America First,” they are Israel First and, at very best, America Second.

Now that we have established that you cannot be a Zionist and America First, it is important that we apply the logical conclusion of this argument to modern-day foreign policy. Today, President Trump launched strikes against Iran for a second time in 8 months, renewing American entry into a conflict he already initiated last June when he struck Iran’s nuclear sites on behalf of the Jewish state. Reports have indicated that nothing is off the table from targeted strikes to outright invasion and regime change, and America has amassed its largest buildup of military assets in the Middle East since the Iraq War in 2003. A regime change war, which Trump has already signaled he intends to pursue (beyond the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei), would only further Israel’s desire for regional hegemony or “Greater Israel,” while leading to the pyrrhic loss of American dollars and lives. A protracted campaign to 'liberate' Iran's native people from the mullahs, while advantageous to Israeli ambitions, could only harm the US.

On the domestic front, a war with Iran would almost certainly lead to the electoral defeat of Republicans, with some polls indicating that as many as 70% of voters would oppose a hypothetical war. Restrictions on the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement and speech critical of Israel in Florida and California have done little to change the minds of Americans. Anti-Israel sentiment and general distrust of the American foreign policy aims has risen massively and threatens to disrupt politics as usual.

The growing nationalism of the young conservative right might spell the end for those who espouse dual nationalism to obfuscate their support for Israel First. Another regime change war in the Middle East will only further solidify the anti-entanglement sensibilities of Gen Z. Furthermore, a Republican loss in the upcoming midterms will further prove that America First and Zionism are irreconcilable and cannot be amalgamated via Trumpian populism. A movement that claims nationalism must ultimately decide which nation it means. Those among the ranks of the right who claim to be able to juggle loyalty for Israel and America in light of the nascent conflict must be met with utmost suspicion. The present intervention in Iran could not be a clearer litmus test for those who claim dual nationalism for both Israel and the United States.