Sapper Redux said:
It tells us that assuming someone doesn't have the best interests of the United States at heart because they also happen to have deep ties to another place/group is often a fallacious assumption. The US has valid reasons of national security and interest in supporting states like Israel in the region. Assuming Shapiro puts Israel ahead of the U.S. sounds a lot like a "dual loyalty" charge that has a long and ugly history, and one that Catholics have faced (look up the Know-Nothings and Thomas Nast cartoons).
I loathe politics except as freak show entertainment, but I think this is a good question. Christians say that you can't serve two masters. You might be able to get away with it as long as both your masters have a common interest and goal. However, at some point a choice must be made. As DeProfundis said, he has loyalty to America and the Vatican, but if there is conflict he will choose the Vatican. I'd say the same for myself in a more abstract way. I'm American and Christian, and if that conflicts then I'm picking the Christian part. I think it's fair to ask if someone has divided loyalties.
For instance, does Ben Shapiro want to influence America to benefit Israel to the detriment of America? I don't see what the US gains from supporting Israel in the Gaza conflict aside from a few more dollars for some weapons makers. There is certainly no tangible or strategic benefit for us, and likely much the opposite with all the political blowback across the world. So if someone is pushing for America to go all in supporting Israel in this conflict, I would get a little suspicious about their real loyalties
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full
Medical Disclaimer.